Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

The Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence, through illness, of Mr. SPEAKER from this day's Sitting.

Whereupon Mr. BERNARD WEATHERILL, the CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, proceeded to the Table.

PRAYERS

The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS took the Chair as DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Oral Answers to Questions — WALES

Unemployed Persons

Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for Wales how many people were out of work in Wales at the most recent count; and how this compares with the figures in February 1974 and May 1979.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Nicholas Edwards): I do not know whether it is in order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but I should like to wish Mr. Speaker a speedy recovery from his illness.
In answer to the question, the figure at 6 December 1979 was 85,177, compared with 38,424 in February 1974 and 83,024 in May 1979.

Mr. Knox: Does not my right hon. Friend think that those figures reflect badly on the previous Labour Government? Why does he think that unemployment in Wales more than doubled when the Labour Government were in office?

Mr. Edwards: It is, of course, true that unemployment under the previous Government went up from 38,000 to a peak of 101,000. It therefore ill behoves Labour Members to give lectures on the subject of unemployment.

Mr. Wigley: Does not the Secretary of State fear that the latest figure will double as a result of what is happening in the Welsh economy, with the rundown of steel and the consequent likelihood of a closure of as many as 22 collieries, the withdrawal of active regional policy and the general collapse of employment in all directions?

Mr. Edwards: As I indicated in my first speech from the Government Dispatch Box, when we came into Government the underlying trend of unemployment was rising. At a time of world recession and economic difficulty, there is a likelihood that unemployment figures will rise, but I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's claim that there has been


an abandonment of regional policy. There is an effective regional policy being concentrated on the areas in greatest need.

Mr. Alan Williams: Since the right hon. Gentleman deplores the increase in unemployment under the previous Administration, will he give a categorical assurance that he will not allow the levels under the present Administration to exceed those reached under the previous Government? Will he tell us whether, in relation to the Inmos project, which could possibly have come to Cardiff—which was one of the three short-listed sites—he was consulted and agreed to the National Enterprise Board being released from the commitment that it gave to me that the production unit would go to an assisted area?

Mr. Edwards: I would not be so foolish as to make firm forecasts about future unemployment trends. I do not intend to follow the example of my predecessor, who told us week after week that the situation was being transformed for the better when, all the time, unemployment was rising. As to the Inmos project, no Government decision has been made on that matter.

Mr. Anderson: Is it not a fact that, although the underlying trend of unemployment may have been upwards when the Conservative Party came to power, everything that it has done since, whether in terms of regional policy, steel, coal, the high exchange rate or high interest rates, conspires to make the position worse?

Mr. Edwards: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's remarks on regional policy. We are concentrating help where it is most needed. The interest rates and many of the economic difficulties from which we are suffering arise from the excessive spending of our predecessors and their failure to take necessary action when the time for it was ripe.

Mr. Budgen: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is perhaps doubtful whether the Inmos project will succeed anyway, but that it will almost certainly fail if its location is determined by regional policy or political reasons?

Mr. Edwards: I make no comment about the likely success of the project, but there are extremely attractive indus-

trial sites in the region, and if the project can succeed anywhere there is no reason why it should not succeed on those sites.

Mr. Alec Jones: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain how he will concentrate regional aid in areas that most need it when, within a short period, each area of Wales will, thanks to the actions of his Government, have an equal need for help?

Mr. Edwards: I do not accept that that is so. There are areas with problems that have been, and always will be, greater than those elsewhere. We have always said that we will look at the allocation of development and special development areas as the situation changed. We shall reconsider those areas as the situation changes.

Mr. Barry Jones: Regarding the very serious phenomenon of unemployment and the right hon. Gentleman's efforts to combat it, which so far have not been very good, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that in the Deeside area, which is expected to cope with a very serious potential set of unemployment figures in the years ahead, it is generally believed that the £15 million package which he announced last year is now insufficient? Will he consider doubling it to £30 million?

Mr. Edwards: The hon. Gentleman should not try to give only part of the picture in pretending that all we are doing is spending £15 million on Deeside. I announced that we would be spending £13 million on Deeside in the first year and that that spending programme would continue to develop in subsequent years. There are very attractive sites on Deeside. There are good communications. The labour force has a good reputation. I believe that it is an extremely attractive industrial area.

Tourist Industry

Mr. Best: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has for further stimulating the tourist industry in Wales.

The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Wyn Roberts): The tourist industry makes an important contribution towards the economy of Wales. The Welsh Office and the Wales Tourist Board keep under


constant review the most effective use of the available resources.

Mr. Best: I welcome my hon. Friend's confidence in the tourist trade and his acknowledgment that it is a major contributor to the Welsh economy. But, although I recognise that the Beavis committee came down against compulsory registration in the tourist trade, will my hon. Friend accept that it is extremely worrying that, for instance, whereas it is estimated that some4,000 farm houses participate in the tourist trade, only 1,400 of them are registered? Will my hon. Friend pay close attention to encouraging more registrations so that the tourist trade can be yet more effective in the economy of Wales?

Mr. Roberts: I understand that Professor Beavis's working party on the registration of tourist accommodation recently completed its review, and I await the Wales Tourist Board's comments on its conclusions, which are, I believe, favourable to the continuation of registration on a voluntary basis. But any moves further to assist and encourage the scheme of voluntary registration must await our consideration of Professor Beavis's findings.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: In view of the hon. Gentleman's commitment to tourism, can he say what reduction he has made in the budget of the Wales Tourist Board for the coming financial year?

Mr. Roberts: Subject to the approval of Parliament. I expect the grant-in-aid to remain at this year's level in real terms. The allocation for assistance to tourist projects has been cut by £200,000. But, after allowing for inflation, the amount will be probably a little less than this years allocation of £1·716 million.

Sir Raymond Gower: Is my hon. Friend aware that in Wales, as in the rest of the United Kingdom, the cost of hotel bedrooms is excessive compared with that in France, which has greater overheads and higher food costs? Will he look into this and consider how the French have made such a magnificent achievement in keeping down the cost of hotel bedrooms and, indeed, the cost of meals by having compulsory fixed-charge meals at all establishments?

Mr. Roberts: I am sure that my hon. Friend's remarks will be noted by the

Wales Tourist Board. I shall certainly draw what he said to its attention and to the attention of other bodies connected with hotels and catering.

Mr. Jeffrey Thomas: Has the Minister considered the adverse effect of the latest outbreak of arson on the part of nationalists in Wales on the future of tourism in Wales and the fact that many tourists will be put off coming to Wales? What does he propose to do about it?

Mr. Roberts: The hon. and learned Gentleman will know very well that the firing of homes is a matter not for me but for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. However, the hon. and learned Gentleman is quite right that it may have a very adverse effect on the tourist trade. It is, of course, to be deplored by all of us in this House and outside in Wales.

Trades Union Congress

Sir Anthony Meyer: asked the Secretary of State for Wales when next he expects to meet the secretary-general of the Wales Trades Union Congress.

Mr. Alec Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Wales when last he met the Wales Trades Union Congress; and when he proposes to meet it again.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: I have met the Wales TUC a number of times since I took office, and I hope to continue this practice. I last met it on 29 October, when it met the Prime Minister.

Sir A. Meyer: When my right hon. Friend next meets Mr. George Wright, will he draw his attention to the remarkable results of a poll published in The Times today which indicates that the overwhelming majority of trade unionists support totally the Government's proposals to amend the trade union legislation'? Therefore, will he ask Mr. George Wright by what conceivable right he considers that he can use the trade union movement in Wales to batter the Government's policies?

Mr. Edwards: I am sure that Mr. George Wright will note both the poll and my hon. Friend's remarks. It is quite clear that, if the trade union movement in Wales takes that action, it will have a damaging effect on business and, therefore, on job prospects in Wales.

Mr. Alec Jones: When the Secretary of State next meets the Wales TUC, perhaps he will take the opportunity to explain both to Mr. George Wright and to the overwhelming number of trade unionists in Wales the benefits which have accrued to Wales as a consequence of the Government's policies: first, in eroding regional policies seriously; secondly, in closing skillcentres; thirdly, in cutting the WDA budget by about 30 per cent.; and now proposing to axe savagely the steel and coal industries and those industries which supply them. Does he not realise, therefore, that the Wales TUC and the people of Wales make two demands: a reversal of present Government policies and action to prevent the de-industrialisation of South Wales?

Mr. Edwards: If we are to prevent the de-industrialisation of South Wales—indeed, of Britain as a whole—industry must be competitive and be manned at the levels of our competitors overseas. It does no service to British industry to think that we can put off the day when these necessary and difficult decisions have to be taken. There is very good evidence forthinking—and much of it was presented during the broadcast in which the right hon. Gentleman took part last week—that, because other countries have acted quicker to face the changes in the industrial pattern, their steel in-industries are now stronger than ours and better able to face the challenge of the future.

Mr. Kinnock: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it does not take opinion polls in The Times or anywhere else to prove that 100 per cent. of trade unionists and all other workers like to have jobs? When the right hon. Gentleman sees Mr. Wright, if he does at some time in the future—assuming that Mr. Wright is willing to see him after the conduct of his disastrous policy—will he take note of the fact that, as a result of his Government's intervention in the steel industry by insisting on stringent cash limits and unrealistic break-even dates, the impact on the Welsh economy could be the loss of as many as 30,000 or 35,000 jobs and prove him and his Government to be the most disastrous in any post-war year and for considerable years before that in adopting a policy of conscious industrial destruction?

Mr. Edwards: The hon. Gentleman says that he and others are good judges of what are the views of trade union members. I note that the trade unions did not seek to obtain the views of their members before launching into their present strike, which undoubtedly is doing great damage to the South Wales economy. We know of at least one industrial company, which already has cancelled its planned investment programme because of that strike. The situation which confronts the British steel industry, its management and its unions—and I am now answering it—is that they have to organise their steel industry so that it can compete in a competitive world.

Mr. Alan Williams: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the company to which he refers would have gone ahead with its project months ago had he not altered his regional policy and made it necessary to renegotiate the package? Can the right hon. Gentleman also confirm that that company has one of the best industrial relations records in Wales? Is he aware, further, that the American management had indicated prior to Christmas that it was considering cancelling the project because of the downturn in the British economy?

Mr. Edwards: I can confirm that under the new criteria we were able to produce selective financial assistance, which would have enabled that project to go ahead. I am aware also that the management of that project has said that its reason for not going ahead is the present industrial chaos and the strikes taking place in Wales.

Mr. Ray Powell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Mr. George Wright has forecast over the weekend that there will be a 50 per cent. increase in unemployment in Wales? If he is aware of the prediction by Mr. Wright, one of the leaders of the trade union movement in Wales, what are his plans to try to reduce the number of unemployed in Wales that we know will be forecast in the next two months?

Mr. Edwards: On the one hand, it must be right that the country gets its spending plans in line so that too great a burden of interest rates and taxation does not fall on productive industry. But


we have also made clear that the Government accept their responsibility to take remedial action in facing the industrial changes taking place in South Wales. We have already announced those measures in the case of Shotton. We are considering the position in South Wales in the light of recent actions and decisions by the board of the British Steel Corporation.

Mr. Ioan Evans: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, because of the alarm and despondency about Government economic and industrial policy, the TUC in Wales is to organise a national day of action and protest on Monday? This is intended to bring home to the Government the deep feeling felt by trade unionists in Wales. What action is the right hon. Gentleman taking on the representations made by the TUC in Wales about the import of coking coal? There are large stocks of coking coal in Wales. What action is he also proposing about investment in the Phurnacite plant? This is vital and an urgent decision is required.

Mr. Edwards: I have been asked three questions. The hon. Gentleman suggests that industrial action by the TUC will help the Welsh economy. I cannot think of anything likely to be more disastrous. I wish that the hon. Gentleman had heard the remarks of the head of Merry-weather and Son Ltd. when he announced the coming of its plant to Ebbw Vale on Friday, about the real issues that decide the success or failure of British companies. The hon. Gentleman should be emphasising what is necessary to make successful companies like Merry weather come to South Wales instead of trying to create a situation that will put the company off coming.
On coking coal, the Government have made clear that this is a matter for negotiation between the British Steel Corporation and the National Coal Board. They are free to use the funds being made available by the Government to work out arrangements between themselves. The Phurnacite plant is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. No announcement has yet been made about it.

Advance Factories (Ceredigion)

Mr. Geraint Howells: asked the Secretary of State for Wales how many

advance factories in Ceredigion have not been allocated to potential industrialists and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Five out of 29 completed factories.

Mr. Howells: I am sure that the Secretary of State is aware that certain parts of my constituency have had the highest number of unemployed per head of population in Wales for the past 10 years. What plans has he in mind to help the area? Will he consider upgrading the area to development area status or giving extra financial aid to the Development Board for Rural Wales?

Mr. Edwards: In addition to the 29 completed factories in Ceredigion, the board is currently building a further 10 in Aberystwyth and two in Cardigan. By the middle of the year, there will be a total of 41 units in the area. The board will be announcing further factory development in its new factory building programme. A large part of the hon. Gentleman's constituency enjoys development area status at the present time.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: Will the right hon. Gentleman say how his £3 million, or one-third, cut in the funding of the development board is helpful in tenanting empty advance factories?

Mr. Edwards: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the £6 million provision for the board this year is the same provision as that made in the public expenditure plans of the previous Government. In previous years, some additional funds were made available because of under-spending in other sectors during the year. We are planning for the next financial year on the same basis as our predecessors.

Dr. Roger Thomas: This large area of unemployment in Ceredigion extends south of the River Teify into the Carmarthen constituency. The Teify has long been affected to a certain extent by the policies of the previous Government but particularly by those of this Government.

Mr. Edwards: I am sure that the Development Board for Rural Wales will take note of the hon. Gentleman's representation. I do not think that the greater part of his constituency has such severe problems as some of those lo which the


hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells) referred.

Welsh Office (Staff)

Mr. Hooson: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what reduction in the number of Welsh Office employees he expects to achieve during 1980.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: It is not possible at this stage to give a precise figure for 1980, but we shall continue to take all necessary action to achieve the total target reduction of 235 by 1982–83 announced on 6 December.

Mr. Hooson: That news is welcome. Will my right hon. Friend keep the functions of the Welsh Office under review in order to identify unproductive activities that can be eliminated?

Mr. Edwards: I can assure my hon. Friend that we are continuing to review all the functions and operations of the office.

Mr. Alan Williams: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that not everyone shares his joy and pleasure at the actual reduction of job opportunities in Government service for young people in Wales? Will he bear in mind that we are also concerned about labour-shedding in other departments in Wales? What is the right hon. Gentleman doing, for example, to save the essential Llanelli skillcentre? Is he conscious of the fact that, as Wales is particularly dependent on small firms that cannot afford their own training schemes, it is an act of lunacy to think of closing a skillcentre in South-West Wales?

Mr. Edwards: I have recently seen the chairman of the Manpower Services Commission and drawn to his attention the many representations that have been made by hon. Members and others about the Llanelli skillcentre. I have emphasised to him the importance with which the skillcentre is rightly regarded in that part of Wales.

Mr. Best: Is my right hon. Friend in a position to estimate the increase in the number of employees in the Welsh Office that might be occasioned by the Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill that will shortly be introduced into the House?

Mr. Edwards: Estimates we have made of the reduction in overall numbers in the Welsh Office fully take into account any consequences of current legislation.

Public Expenditure

Mr. Ioan Evans: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received from local government authorities and other organisations regarding the proposed cuts in public expenditure.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: I have received 63 representations from local authorities and other organisations in Wales on reductions in public expenditure.

Mr. Evans: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that all hon. Members representing Welsh constituencies have received strong representations from the Welsh Counties Committee and the Council of the Principality representing all the district councils, expressing alarm over the effect on them of cuts in public expenditure? Will the right hon. Gentleman take on his shoulders the responsibility for these cuts and not put it on the councillors who have an impossible task in determining priorities? Such massive cuts have led to a difficult situation in Mid-Glamorgan, where school transport charges have had to be imposed.

Mr. Edwards: I note the hon. Gentleman's comments about Mid-Glamorgan. If he looks at what has happened in other Welsh authorities, he will see that many of them have taken other options. There is no reason for thinking that the choice made by the Mid-Glamorgan council is the only choice. No doubt representations will continue to be made on that point. The hon. Gentleman should not exaggerate the scale of the cuts. They amount to 2½ per cent. over two years compared with cuts of 2½ per cent. in local government expenditure in a single year under the previous Labour Government.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is the view of many of those best qualified in local government that there could be appreciable cuts in local government expenditure without any impairment of the qualiy of services? Is he further aware that there is some anxiety over: the impact of the proposed methods of controlling local government


capital expenditure on job creation programmes, which may be carried out in partnership with private sources of finance and could be inhibited by Government legislation under contemplation?

Mr. Edwards: I am sure that there is plenty of room in local government and elsewhere for improvements in efficiency and manning. It is known that local government manning is at record levels at present. The other matter to which my hon. Friend refers is currently being considered in Committee. The appropriate place for discussion of capital controls is in Committee where the Education (No. 2) Bill is being considered.

Mr. Rowlands: The right hon. Gentleman referred to school bus charges. Is it not a fact that the Education (No. 2) Bill proposes to give power to local authorities to make such charges? Would not the simplest solution be to delete Clause 23 of the Bill? If the right hon. Gentleman is unwilling to go so far, will he support amendments that the Opposition might propose to the Bill to prevent discriminatory charges on denominational grounds or on grounds of bilingualism as in the case of schools in mid-Glamorgan?

Mr. Edwards: I deplore discriminatory charges and do not consider that they are necessary. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will continue to make that point to the Mid-Glamorgan authority. We have told the Church authorities—I have said it myself—that we shall of course consider all the points that are currently being made in the Committee considering the Bill.

Mr. Wigley: Does not the Secretary of State accept that it is usual and normal in legislation to provide that there shall not be discrimination of one citizen against another under any Act of Parliament? There are plenty of precedents for that—in the Local Government Act, the Water Act and several other Acts. In these circumstances, will not the right hon. Gentleman put pressure on the Secretary of State for Education and Science to accept an amendment that will stop that type of discrimination, which will hit people very hard, particularly families with several children?

Mr. Edwards: One would hope that it was not necessary to write in that kind of rule to prevent discrimination by local

authorities in Wales. It is deplorable that it should be considered necessary in this case.

Mr. Geraint Howells: Is the Secretary of State aware that, because of the serious cutbacks by local authorities, rates will be increased during the coming year? Is he in a position to say by what percentage they will be increased?

Mr. Edwards: I am not prepared to give a forecast of rate increases. What I know is that the rate settlement for Wales was particularly good. I am sure that, given restraint by the local authorities, the rate increases can be kept down.

Sir Raymond Gower: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the anxiety about the discriminatory nature of some proposals about school transport fares is not confined to one side of the House? Indeed, it is shared by many of us on the Conservative Benches.

Mr. Edwards: I am sure that it is a matter that should concern all hon. Members. But I repeat that I hope that such views will be expressed firmly to the local authorities involved.

Overseas Students

Mr. Ifor Davies: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what impact the increase in fees for overseas students is likely to have on institutions of higher education for which he is responsible.

The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Michael Roberts): It is too early to say. The picture will not be clear until the early summer.

Mr. Davies: Is the Minister aware that the Welsh education institutions, and the universities in particular, have a proud record and tradition of helping overseas students, not only in education but in international understanding? Will he therefore use all his powers to safeguard the tradition and reduce the financial effect that the Government's new policy on fees for overseas students will certainly have?

Mr. Roberts: Public sector institutions in Wales have not drawn anything like the same proportion of students from overseas as have some colleges in England. For example, in 1978 the proportion was 8 per cent.; for England and Wales as a whole, it was 20 per cent.


The effect of the fee increase will be correspondingly less in Wales. I assure the House that we have not ignored the potential benefits—economic, political and educational—that flow from the presence in this country of overseas students. But these potential gains must be seen in relation to a current subsidy approaching £100 million a year.

Mr. Best: Is my hon. Friend aware that the excessive increase in fees implemented by the last Government seemed to have little effect upon the total number of overseas students coming to this country? Will he accept that there is grave concern on both sides of the House that students from the poorer countries have been inhibited from coming here as a result of the increase? Will he ensure that an adequate contingency fund is always kept to see that those students from the poorer countries are given the same opportunity to come to this country and benefit from the high standard of education as those from the richer countries?

Mr. Roberts: One of the reasons why so many students have continued to come, despite increased fees, is the very high standard of our university education and other higher education. Our staff to student ratios are most favourable and our degree courses are shorter and more intensive. A certain number of students from the poorer countries can certainly come through the assistance provided by the overseas aid programme, but I shall bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said.

Nationalised Industries

Mr. Coleman: asked the Secretary of State for Wales when he will meet the chairman of the nationalised industries to discuss their operations in Wales.

Mr. Barry Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Wales when he proposes next to meet the chairman of the nationalised industries to discuss their operations in Wales.

Mr. Denzil Davies: asked the Secretary of State for Wales when he will meet the heads of nationalised industries to discuss the operation of their industries in Wales.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Meetings are arranged whenever the chairman or I think necessary.

Mr. Coleman: Last week 10,155 workers in Wales from Port Talbot and Llanwern learnt that they would lose their jobs, while thousands of other workers in the coal mining industry are also to lose their jobs, as a result of decisions by the industries. Has the Secretary of State had any discussions at board level or at local level about those decisions? Will he urgently set up a task force to deal with what will be the most disastrous unemployment that Wales, in particular South Wales, has had since the war?

Mr. Edwards: The news of proposed reductions at Llanwern and Port Talbot was first announced before Christmas. Last week's announcement involves rather fewer reductions than in the earlier options that were being considered. I can confirm that the chairman of the British Steel Corporation came to see me before announcing the options that were to be favoured by the board. I have already made clear that the Government accept their responsibility to introduce remedial measures. Now that we have firm proposals from BSC we are considering the matter urgently.
I am not convinced that task forces are necessarily the best way to organise and co-ordinate. I was interested when I went to Shotton to have that view confirmed by representatives of the local authorities there.

Mr. Barry Jones: When he talks to the chairman of BSC, will the right hon. Gentleman strongly inquire about the likely fate of the BSC strip metal research centre at Shotton, where an investment of about £8 million and more than 100 jobs are likely to disappear? Can he obtain for me details of the likely compensation for the employees there, and find out whether the Americans are likely to gain the technological information that the centre has? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the chairman that with the redundancies and allied job losses at Shotton now approximating nearly 8,000, that is an unacceptable figure.

Mr. Edwards: I shall certainly make inquiries of the chairman on the points that the hon. Gentleman has raised, and


then write to the hon. Gentleman. I note the hon. Gentleman's last remark. He will appreciate that the future of the excellent plant that remains at Shotton very much depends on its ability to sell its products. I am sure that he will agree that industrial disruption can only be damaging to the plant's future.

Mr. Davies: Is the Secretary of State aware that the Government's plans for the steel industry, especially the unrealistic break-even point, will destroy the Welsh economy and turn South Wales into an industrial wasteland? Will the Government now raise that break-even point, so that the industry's problems can be looked at rationally and sensibly?

Mr. Edwards: It must be faced that the principal reason why the BSC management is producing its present plan is the need to be competitive in a world market and to sell steel. It is its assessment of the present market that leads to the conclusion that it has announced. I deplore the continued suggestion that, however difficult the decisions may be—I certainly do not underestimate the consequence—they will turn South Wales into an industrial desert. I do not believe that that is helpful. Going round many of the industrial sites in Wales and seeing the new companies coming in, and the successful companies operating there, I find that that is not a true picture.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that further to postpone the achievement of competitiveness by increasing subsidies will only lay further burdens on the very industries that should be coming in to provide replacement jobs?

Mr. Edwards: I am sure that that is right. I listened with interest to the views expressed last week in a long BBC broadcast in which the right hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Jones) took part and which included a recording of an interview with me. In that programme people from the continent of Europe and from America pointed to the action being taken there and the fact that overseas competitors were moving ahead of our industry the whole time. That emphasises the need to do at least as well as, and better than, our competitors overseas.

Mr. Wigley: Does the Secretary of State accept that, if there were an import embargo selectively on steel and steel products, as many as 25,000 jobs could be directly saved? Does he appreciate that the effect on, say, a washing machine would be only half of 1 per cent. on the retail price? Does he agree that that would be a reasonable price to pay considering the likely effect of these cuts?

Mr. Edwards: I do not accept that analysis. I believe that import controls would have disastrous economic consequences for this country. I urge the hon. Gentleman to read, if he did not hear, the speech on this subject by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) in the debate on steel, because the right hon. Gentleman seemed to me to put forward an overwhelming argument against the proposition advanced by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Alec Jones: If the right hon. Gentleman holds that view on selective import controls, will he explain why he wrote the letter to the Wales TUC saying that there was a time and a place when unemployment might be so high as to demand import controls? Surely, the figures that we have been given for steel and for coal indicate that the situation in Wales is not as helpful as the right hon. Gentleman seems to think, but is even gloomier than the Opposition fear?

Mr. Edwards: The letter written from my office, not by me, to the Wales TUC—[Interruption.] I am not arguing; I am just setting the facts right—did not indicate that the steel problem was appropriate for that kind of temporary control to meet a temporary situation, particularly in circumstances of unfair competition by other countries. That has been the position of successive Governments. The position taken by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade, who made the detailed statement on which the letter from the Welsh Office was based, was wholly consistent with the action taken by British Governments over many years to deal with short-term distortions of that kind.

Mr. Coleman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of those replies, I give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

Oral Answers to Questions — WORKS OF ART (EXPORTS)

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he expects to receive the report of the Committee on the Export of Works of Art concerning a procedure specifically designed for temporary exports which could be incorporated into the export control regulations.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas): May I, before answering this question, Mr. Deputy Speaker, with your permission, in my capacity as Leader of the House, express the hope that Mr. Speaker will very soon be fully restored to health from his present indisposition. 
In answer to the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), may I say that the committee is considering the matter urgently and, while I cannot predict when I shall receive its recommendations, I hope to do so shortly.

Mr. Dalyell: Is legislation contemplated on this complex issue?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: No immediate legislation. I do not know what the committee will recommend. My hope is that we shall be able to adjust this without legislation, but it will depend on the committee's recommendations.

Mr. Faulds: May I, too, Mr. Deputy Speaker, wish Mr. Speaker a speedy return to health and full effectiveness?
May I underline to the right hon. Gentleman the great importance of ensuring that there is no risk whatsoever in this examination that he is setting up that permanent loss of objects as important as the Michelangelo Tondo could arise from temporary export abroad for exhibition purposes? It is most important that that sort of danger does not arise.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am fully in agreement with the hon. Gentleman. I am most concerned that no part of our heritage should be exported. I assure him that in this regard I shall treat these objects as if they were my own.

Mr. Faulds: I do not wish the right hon. Gentleman to behave as he did about the Newman portrait.

Oral Answers to Questions — THE ARTS (GOVERNMENT SUPPORT)

Mr. David Price: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what proposals he has to make to safeguard the 1979–80 level of Government support for the living arts during 1980–81.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Neil Macfarlane): I refer my hon. Friend to the White Paper on the Government's public expenditure plans for 1980–81, published last November. This stated that direct central Government expenditure in support of museums, libraries and the live arts in 1980–81 should allow a continuation of activities at a level broadly comparable to what has been possible in the current year.

Mr. Price: Is my hon. Friend aware that the contribution from public funds in this country in support of the living arts is a great deal less than that in some neighbouring European countries? Therefore, will he ensure that that contribution is not eroded by inflation and that, in so far as it is, it is made up, because there is no fat left to be saved?

Mr. Macfarlane: I sympathise to a certain extent with the point made by my hon. Friend. However, I would not offer any guarantees or assurances this afternoon on the question that he has put to me. By comparison with other EEC members, we enjoy a great deal of commercial and industrial sponsorship for the arts which other countries have not worked up to such an effective level as we have.

Mr. Freud: Is the Minister or his right hon. Friend aware of the imminent departure by a British orchestra for Russia under an Arts Council grant?

Mr. Cormack: Bring it back.

Mr. Freud: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise the national credibility gap that is created by sending music to the Soviet Union now while treatening the withdrawal of sport later?

Mr. Macfarlane: I acknowledge the point made by the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud). I shall certainly draw it to the attention of my colleagues both in Cabinet and Government. I am


certain that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who is eminently aware of that point, will have taken due note of what the hon. Gentleman said.

Mr. Cormack: Does my hon. Friend agree that vast numbers of tourists are attracted to this country every year because of our arts and heritage? Does he also agree that little is to be achieved by candle-end economies in these departments?

Mr. Macfarlane: I think that I understand what my hon. Friend means by "candle-end economies". The picture is not as desperate as he paints it. He knows the importance that we attach to taking the arts to the rest of the United Kingdom, and we recognise the contribution that tourists have made to the arts. We hope that they will long continue to prosper in that way.

Mrs. Reneée Short: Is the Minister aware that to rely on commercial support for the arts is to rely on very frail support? Is he also aware that the chairman of Covent Garden in the annual report said that he cannot rely significantly on such support in future? If a prestigious company such as Covent Garden cannot rely on such support, what are the smaller, poorer companies in the provinces going to do to get commercial support? It is Government support that is needed.

Mr. Macfarlane: I certainly understand what the hon. Lady is saying. But she must appreciate that there are many sources which we should certainly exploit in Government. The previous Administration tried it and we intend to do he same. It is notable that a number of companies in the smaller communities in this country have begun to make contributions in the local regional arts context. I do not believe that the hon. Lady in her right mind—and she is fair and reasonable on these matters—would contend that is not a sensible suggestion. It is not our intention to build our entire support on such contributions. I agree that in some respects it might be frail support, but it is some support. The world of art, I am sure, would want to pay tribute to the many companies and organisations, both large and small, which have done such a tremendous job in recent years.

Mr. Ifor Davies: Is the Minister aware of the remarkable success of a recent visit by the Welsh National Opera Company to this city? Will he therefore ensure that the company, which does more than its fair share of touring, gets a fair grant?

Mr. Macfarlane: I endorse what the hon. Gentleman said. However, I think that I am right in saying that here was a classic example of industrial support from a well-known oil company. At the same time, I am sure that both my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Wales and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster were eminently aware of that tremendous success and contribution.

Mr. Buchan: Does the Minister accept that the argument that private patronage is any substitute for public support is complete nonsense? Above all, will he follow the example of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster who has given as an example of what he means by private patronage—treating things as if they were his own, particularly the Cardinal Newman portrait?

Mr. Macfarlane: I shall address my response to the beginning of the hon. Gentleman's question. I do not accept the argument that private patronage is a nonsense. Far from it. It has made enormous contributions, and the campaign which we plan over the next few months is intended to expand it. The hon. Gentleman has not advanced a reasonable argument. I can only assume that he does not fully understand the contribution that has been made.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH LIBRARY

Mr. Neubert: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what recent representations he has received on the relocation of the British Library.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I have recently received a letter from the president of the Royal Society urging that work on the new building on the Euston Road site should begin as soon as possible and I have also had strong representations in favour of the new building from a number of distinguished people involved with the library in one way or another.

Mr. Neubert: I do not wish my hon. Friend to pre-empt the work of the new Select Committee, but will he at least agree that the project to re-site the British Library at a cost of about £200 million, involving the loss of the use of the historic reading room, is not auspicious at this time? Are there any cost implications in extra time being provided for consideration before a decision is made?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am reviewing the project. The sum mentioned by my hon. Friend must be spread over a number of years. Conservation of the books is vital. The British Library should be able to give a first-rate service not only to British readers but to scholars from all over the world.

Mr. Dalyell: What is the latest proposed timetable for the work?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: We are reviewing the whole project. There is no question of the project being carried out in one year or even in two or three years. I hope to be in the position to tell the House the Government's proposals when the review has been finished.

Mr. Cormack: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of us would agree that in this context Cardinal Newman was right when he said that one step was enough? Does he agree that there is a real case for retaining the reading room? Will he pay proper attention to the representations of scholars all over the world to retain that historic place?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: The preservation of the reading room is involved in the review. I offer another saying by the great cardinal. He said that to change is to be human and to change often is to be perfect.

Mr. Faulds: Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that the Government will not allow the Secretary of State for the Environment to sell off the Bloomsbury site—there are rumours to that effect—because it would pre-empt the future possible use of that very valuable site for these purposes?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: That is a matter for my right hon. Friend. I have no ministerial responsibility for it.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARTS COUNCIL

Mrs Renée Short: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he plans next to meet the chairman of the Arts Council.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: On Monday 4 February.

Mrs. Short: Does the Chancellor of the Duchy agree that he will certainly have much to discuss with the chairman of the Arts Council? Is he aware that the arts have been under-funded for the whole of this decade and that they receive less than 2 per cent. of the total education budget? Does he accept that this year £1 million has been lopped off the grant? Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that the Arts Council is desperately anxious to know when the 1980–81 grant will be announced because it is living from hand to mouth waiting for the next financial year to bring the expected appalling news? May we know when the grant is likely to be announced and what it is likely to be?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I agree with the hon. Lady if she is saying that no Government in the last decade have given the support to the arts which I personally believe that they should have. I ask the hon. Lady to put the position in perspective. The cut in the Arts Council budget was smaller than that sustained by any Department. No cuts have been made by the Arts Council to any of its clients' budgets this year. An announcement about the size of the grant must be made to the House first. I hope that we shall be able to make an announcement within the next few weeks.

Mr. David Price: Before my right hon. Friend meets the chairman of the Arts Council will he talk to the Secretary of State for Trade and ensure that his Department makes a contribution to the Arts Council in view of the enormous importance of the arts to the tourist industry? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is right for the Secretary of State for Trade to share responsibility for funding the Arts Council on a more generous basis?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: The Secretary of State for Trade has no responsibility for the arts, but my hon. Friend's suggestion is most interesting. All contributions are


welcome and I shall pass on his suggestion. However, my hopes are greater than my expectations.

Mr. Faulds: What action does the Chancellor of the Duchy intend to take to offset the damage outlined in the working party report, caused by the Arts Council not being in effective charge of its own operations because of restraints by the Department? What does the right hon. Gentleman intend to do to lessen those limitations on effective action by the Arts Council?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I do not believe that the Arts Council is under any restraints from the Department.

Mr. Faulds: But it is.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am speaking for myself and from my experience. The cooperation between myself and the Arts Council is harmonious, happy and constructive. I hope that it will continue to be so.

Mr. Archie Hamilton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is no limit to the amount of taxpayers' money for which the Arts Council could find a home?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: The demands of the arts on the total budget are modest, not excessive. I am glad that the present Government are able to say that the general level of support for the arts next year, despite the financial stringency, will be similar to this year's.

Mr. Cormack: Will my right hon. Friend have discussions with the chairman of the Arts Council about the Royal Academy? Does he know that the Arts Council feels that it is impossible to advance money to the Royal Academy? Does my right hon. Friend accept that the Royal Academy plays a vital part in the artistic life of the nation and should be assisted?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Of course I accept that the Royal Academy is an important artistic and cultural institution. However, a basic principle of arts support is that decisions about the levels of support and who is supported are taken, not by myself, but by the Arts Council. It is important for that constitutional principle to be maintained. After all, there might be a Minister whose taste does not accord with that of my hon. Friend and he would then take a different view.

Oral Answers to Questions — PROVINCIAL THEATRE AND OPERA

Mr. Freud: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what funds have been made available to (a) provincial theatre and (b) provincial opera for the coming year; and if he will express this in real percentage terms of the previous year's allocation.

Mr. Macfarlane: Funds for provincial theatre and opera come from a variety of sources, including the Arts Council, local authorities and private bodies. The level of funds from the Arts Council in the coming year will be a matter for the council to determine in the light of its own grant-in-aid.

Mr. Freud: Does the Minister accept the real contribution made by the provincial opera and the provincial theatre? Will he be mindful of the dangers of giving ever-increasing grant aid to the National Theatre while the total grant aid to the arts remains static?

Mr. Macfarlane: I take note of that. My right hon. Friend and I agree that the contribution by the provincial opera and theatre should be encouraged. However, I do not wish to make any commitment this afternoon.

Mr. Rowlands: Is the Minister aware of the threat to the Welsh National Youth Orchestra as a result of Welsh Office cuts to education authorities? Will he have a word with the philistines in the Welsh Office so that a magnificent youth orchestra is saved?

Mr. Macfarlane: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's latter remark. I certainly do not accept that there are philistines on this side of the House. There is none whatsoever. We recognise art in all its forms.

Mr. Rees-Davies: In the light of that question, I rise as one of the Minister's cultured hon. Friends, to see whether he will pursue an idea which the Tourism Committee considered with Equity and the Theatrical Management Association. Will the Minister consider the possibility of a theatrical society to provide tickets for both provincial and London theatres to encourage the recent insurgence of theatre goers by enabling them to purchase tickets for a year in bulk? Does


the Minister accept that in that way we might encourage people on the home front to continue their interest in the living theatre in London and the provinces? Will he originate discussions on those lines to see if we can do something to help the living theatre?

Mr. Macfarlane: My hon and learned Friend—dare I say my hon. and cultured Friend—has certainly made a most interesting suggestion, and as soon as any details are forthcoming my office will be only too happy to give it detailed consideration.

FLOODS (SOUTH WALES)

Mr. Rowlands: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I seek your advice? You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and certainly Mr. Speaker, will know that there was widespread flooding in many parts of South Wales. We have been making representations concerning financial support for local authorities and individuals. We hear from press reports that the EEC is to give some assistance to individuals, but the House has been kept totally in the dark about the assistance and support that the Government will give to individuals and local authorities.
There were questions on the Order Paper for answer today relating to the

floods in South Wales, but they were not reached. I believe that it is within the power of the Minister to seek permission to answer them after 3.30 pm. Has the Secretary of State for Wales requested such permission?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have had no such request.

Mr. Ioan Evans: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Last week the Opposition were expecting a statement from the Secretary of State on the Welsh floods. I asked the Leader of the House whether he would undertake to convey to the Secretary of State our expectation of such a statement, since thousands of families have been affected. Since the Leader of the House and the Secretary of State are both here, may we have such a statement?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is not a matter for the Chair whether the Government make a statement. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's comment will have been noted.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS &c

Ordered,

That the draft Dangerous Substances and Preparations (Safety) Regulations 1980 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments &c.—[Mr. St. John-Stevas.]

NORTHERN REGION

Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Cope.]

Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: It is a great pleasure to address the House on the problems of the Northern region, because that region and its 3 million people have a unique claim to the attention of the House. Put simply, they have suffered greater economic and social deprivation than any other part of the United Kingdom, other than Northern Ireland, for virtually the whole of the last decade. I welcome this opportunity because the House and the Government must ask themselves how much longer this state of affairs can be allowed to continue and, possibly, to get worse.
We need to consider what steps should be taken to rectify the position, which has existed for so long. Geographically, this country is largely still two nations, with the North suffering economic and social deprivation of an order that is not fully appreciated in the South. The North has many attributes and good features. I do not propose to go into those this afternoon, although, doubtless, hon. Members will want to sing the parises of their constituencies today.
In referring to the Northern region, I include not only the North-East but the beautiful Lake District and the Pennines. We cover the whole of that beautiful area. However, it is not upon those areas that I wish to concentrate. The North has many successful industries with high productivity and good industrial relations comparing with the best in the country. But it is not of that that I shall be speaking this afternoon. We have such fundamental problems that the House must address itself to them and consider solutions that can be introduced by the Government and by the public authorities in the region.
At the core of the region's problems is the persistent high level of unemployment.

At present, 117,000 men and women are without jobs, a rate of about 8·5 per cent., compared with a rate for Great Britain of 5·5 per cent. The level there is 55 per cent. higher than the average for Great Britain, and it represents a staggering figure. That state of affairs has existed for most of the last decade and, in some cases, even before that.
There has always been a wide differential between the individual regions and the national level. That gap is now widening, as it has been for the past decade, with over 20,000 redundancies per annum occurring in traditional industries over recent years. Individual areas such as Hartlepool and Consett have even higher levels of unemployment than the region as a whole. We also have the highest ratio of unemployment to unfilled vacancies of any part of the country, a figure of 13·4 to 1, which compares to the next highest of 11·7 to 1 in the North-West. There are 10 unemployed people for every vacancy in the region as a whole, whereas in Great Britain the figure is five unemployed for every vacancy. Last year, when unemployment dropped in the rest of the country, the North had to run hard just to stand still and hold unemployment at the level that existed at the beginning of the year.
The outlook is potentially disastrous, and, on the basis of national forecasts and the figures that I have seen for the region I believe that unemployment may rise from 117,000 towards 150,000. The Government are forecasting a drop in private and public investment in the country in the forthcoming year. Compared with previous years, there is also likely to be a substantial drop in the level of growth nationally, and all this comes on top of the region's severe structural problems, which are caused by the continuing decline of traditional industries such as shipbuilding and coal mining.
In coal alone, the numbers employed dropped from 602,000 in 1960—my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Dormand) will be aware of these figures—to 285,000 in 1968. I obtained those figures from the speech of the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) in a debate last week. He drew them to the attention of the Government, and I happily repeat them to remind hon. Members of the blows that traditional industries in


our region have had to sustain. The story for shipbuilding has been much the same. My right hon. and hon. Friends who represent Wearside constituencies will know of the disasters that have befallen that industry, and that applies to Teesside and Tyneside. Every part of the region has been hit by substantial redundancies in recent years.
The steel industry is another example. In my area of Cleveland, as in other parts of the region, that industry has been hard hit, and it will be hit even harder over the next few years. There have been disastrous closures in other industries—Courtaulds at Spennymoor, Vickers on Tyneside, and, just the other week, the John Collier closure on Teesside, with a loss of 900 jobs. Hardly a week has gone by in recent months when I and, I am sure, my hon. Friends have not had closures taking place in our areas in the region. There has been hardly a week—

Mr. Robert C. Brown: Hardly a day.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: Yes, as my hon. Friend says, hardly a day when closures have not been announced. The situation is about as bleak as one could imagine.
All the details of the difficulties facing the region were brought together in a report by the Northern region strategy team, published in 1977. I do not want to rehearse all the facts produced in that report or in the review of progress that was made public in February last year.
It was clear from the detailed work done by that highly professional strategy team that we had in our region a higher proportion of unskilled workers, that we had lower educational attainment—only 15 per cent. of our children going on to further and higher education compared with 22 per cent. in the rest of the country—and that we had a higher incidence of sickness and disability, with twice the national average of disability benefit and sickness benefit being paid in our region, the reason, of course, largely being the character of the principal industries in our area, mining, shipbuilding and the like.
In our region there were more pensioners on supplementary benefit than there were in any other region. Moreover, about 100,000 houses-10 per cent. of

our stock—were unfit or substandard and not fit for occupation. Those facts are an indication of the truly depressing picture of our region, and they show why we have a unique claim on the attention of the House.
I shall now look at the way in which, over their nine months in office, the Government have begun to deal with these problems—if "deal with" be the right expression. In fact, they have not dealt with them at all. They have made them worse, exacerbating the problems of the Northern region. There has been a whole chapter of announcements attacking the region's economy and its structure. I am sorry to have to say that, and it gives me no pleasure to do so.
All this is a far cry from the time, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Stockton (Mr. Rodgers) and others who have been here longer than I have will remember in 1962, when—I recall it clearly—Lord Hailsham visited Thornaby, Stockton and other parts of the Northern region, doffing his flat cap. Just as my hon. Friends were, I was incensed by the patronising attitude shown by the noble Lord in putting on that cloth cap and parading himself about the region.
Nevertheless, I say this for the noble Lord: at least, what he did was better than what the present Government are doing, since they are reversing the very policies that were introduced at that time by Lord Hailsham, who, I remind my hon. Friends, is still a member of the Cabinet.
With the White Paper following his visit, Lord Hailsham began a whole programme of public works and other activities, which led to substantial employment in the Northern region and in some ways, indeed, provided the infrastructure for the growth throughout the 1960s which has so much fallen off since then.
It is that policy that the present Government ought to be pursuing, not their policy of rolling back intervention in the economy of the region as they now are.
The national economic prospects are grim. With the Government's obeisance to monetarism throttling the country's economy, we have low growth, high interest rates, low investment and a high exchange rate—all of these punishing industry throughout the country and especially in the Northern region, where


we are more vulnerable in some respects to these influences.
In their regional policy, the Government have made a direct attack upon the help and support given to the regions. The measures of 17 July cut regional aid by some £233 million. That is a cut of nearly 40 per cent. on what it would have been, and this at a time when the need for that assistance will grow and grow.
On 1 August development area grants in our region will be cut from 20 per cent. to 15 per cent., and there will be no grants at all in intermediate areas. The qualifying levels for grant for plant and machinery are to be raised from £100 to £500 and the qualifying levels for buildings from £1,000 to £5,000.
I am pleased that the Under-Secretary of Slate who has responsibility, among other things, for small businesses is to reply to the debate, since that is one matter, apart from a couple of others to which I shall come later, on which I want a reply. How can he approve the raising of the thresholds for grant from £100 to £500 and from £1,000 to £5,000 when this will obviously directly hit small businesses and new businesses that are Loping to establish themselves? We all know—the report of the strategy team made this clear—that the one thing that we need in the Northern region is the growth of indigenous businesses and small businesses, yet what the Government have done will directly weaken the incentive for the establishment and growth of small businesses.
In addition, the Government have raised the exemption threshold for industrial development certificates in London and the South-East and other non-assisted areas to 50,000 sq. ft. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams), the former Minister, pointed out in the debate on regional policy, this means that not only will offices and other developments of 50,000 sq. ft. and more be built in the South, but provision can be made almost on the nod for its extension to double that size, with the consequence that much larger plants well above 50,000 sq. ft. may well be lost to the Northern region.
There have been changes also in the designation of special development areas and development areas. I note—I hope that the Minister will explain this against

the background that I have described—that all the upgradings in respect of designated areas are outside the Northern region, and we have only downgradings.
How can the Minister justify those changes of status when in Alnwick, for example, there was unemployment of 7·1 per cent., in the Darlington and South-West Durham area there was unemployment of 7·1 per cent., in central Durham there was unemployment of 7·4 per cent., in Morpeth the level was 8·8 per cent.. in White haven it was 8·3 per cent. and in Workington it was 8·1 per cent.
How can the Minister justify downgrading those areas in face of the unemployment figures that I have given? I should point out that they are not the present figures—they are higher now—but were the figures at the time when the decision was taken last July.
As a consequence, the special temporary employment programmes and the employment transfer schemes are available in fewer areas in the region than they were hitherto.
All these cuts in regional aid—my hon. Friends realise this only too well—are going to help make up the tax rebates that are being handed out throughout the rest of the country irrespective of whether people in those other parts need them.
I could go through a long story of recent Government actions that are hitting our region, but I know that many of my hon. Friends wish to speak and I do not want to take too long. Let me just mention that the Government are closing skillcentres, for example. These are the places which give people training. As I said earlier, one of our problems in the Northern region is that we have too many unskilled workers. This is one of our structural problems. Fifty per cent. of our unemployed people are unskilled. But what are the Government doing at a time when unemployment is rising and we have more unskilled people on the dole? They are closing the training centres that could have given people skills.
The Government have closed the Location of Offices Bureau, the bureau in London whose job it was to help firms to move out into regions such as ours. We have the same story in the dispersal of civil servants. We were to have 3,000 civil servants from the Property Services Agency dispersed to Middles rough, the


constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Middles rough (Mr. Bottomley). The plan for the Government Chemist to go to Cumbria has been cancelled, so that we shall not have those desperately needed white-collar jobs which could have assisted the employment structure of the region.
There has been a cutback in the activity of the National Enterprise Board. If the guidelines for the national board are strictly adhered to, the result will be a severe emasculation of the activities of the Northern region board. Week after week and month after month we campaigned for Inmos to come to our region. An assurance had been given—myright hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West can, I think, confirm it—that the first Inmos plant would go to an assisted area. It has not done so; it has gone to Bristol. Why has it not come to the Northern region, where we have the skills and the plant available and where the technology and the new jobs are desperately needed?
The Government have abolished the regional economic planning council, which was the focus to which the Northern regional strategy team worked. It did much of the work on the campaign that we ran to try to get the new Inmos plant into the region.
I have mentioned the hammer blow of closures and redundancies that have taken place. During the debate on regional policy, the Secretary of State for Industry said:
There has to be enterprise, competitiveness, high productivity and a reputation for co-operation between management and the work force in the assisted areas if they are to reach the level of employment that we all want them to reach. We need more indigenous growth in the assisted areas. That is why the changes in climate and economic context which we have set ourselves to try to achieve are so relevant to the assisted as well as to the non-assisted areas."—[Official Report, 24 July 1979; Vol. 971, c. 373.]
That is a joke when we consider the atmosphere that I have described.
Are the Government suggesting that in the Northern region we do not have the enterprise, the competitive spirit, the productivity and the good industrial relations to which he was referring? The facts speak for themselves. The region possesses those qualities. However, the Government's actions and economic

policies are killing the very things that the Secretary of State says that he wants to encourage.
I have a letter from the Teesside Small Business Club. I am sure that the chairman will not object if I quote it. It happened to reach me last week in response to representations that I have been making to Ministers on behalf of the club. I think that the Under-Secretary of State knows the Teesside Small Business Club. It contains much enterprise, energy and initiative. I note that the Minister confirms that. He nods his head vigorously. I do not know whether he will nod so vigorously when he hears the contents of the chairman's letter. The chairman wrote:
May I say that it is the consensus of opinion that the Government have not as yet done anything concrete for small businesses and we feel that their efforts have not in any way relieved the pressure on finance. On the contrary their increase in bank rates has had a terrible impact.
That is the verdict of one small but energetic business club. That is what it thinks about the Government's policies.
What should be done to overcome the problems? There is substantial evidence that regional policy has worked effectively. That evidence may be drawn from the eighth report of the Expenditure Committee and from other reports. I shall not go through all the figures. I merely say that they are available to hon. Members.
Bearing in mind the evidence that is available, the needs of the Northern region and the effectiveness of regional policy, I ask the Minister to reconsider the designation of areas and levels of grant for areas that have levels of unemployment that are consistently above the average. We believe that they should be reconsidered. We contend that designations as well as levels of grant should be returned to their previous levels. We hope that the Under-Secretary of State will make an announcement about that before the debate ends.
Secondly, I hope that the Minister will vigorously pursue and support proposals made by the European Parliament and by others for the development of EEC funds for the regions. The regional fund has made major contributions to the Northern region. It has been one of the greatest recipients of EEC funds. If there is an


increase in the level of funds made available as a result of the row that is taking place about the budget, I hope that we shall be able to obtain even more substantial funds from that source.
Thirdly, I hope that the Government will maintain policies to redistribute Government and public expenditure in favour of the regions. That should apply across the board, but in the Northern region we are especially aware of the needs of the Health Service. I hope that the Minister will tell us that the policy of redistributing resources within the Health Service will not be reversed and that the inequalities that have existed between the Northern region and other regions, especially London and the South-East, will be overcome by the payment of larger sums to the Health Service in the region.
Finally, I ask the Minister to tell us whether the Secretary of State is in a position to make an announcement on the establishment of a northern development agency. We have been pressing for such an agency for a long time. We succeeded in convincing our colleagues in the Labour Government and in the Labour Party of the need for it. It featured in the Labour Party election manifesto. The Labour Party said that it would establish such an agency. It was recognised that there was urgent need for it.
We want the agency to have substantial initial capital. At present, job promotion in the region is carried out by the Department of Industry, the Manpower Services Commission, the English industrial Estates Corporation, the NEB regional board, the former economic planning council, the North of England Development Council, by EEC regional aid funds, by local authorities—indeed, by Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all. We want to see a focal point for job creation in the region, and it should be a northern development agency. That is a proposal that has come from not only the Labour Party. It has received wide support in the region, including the CBI regional committee. I hope that the Government will give it serious consideration and will adopt it.
It is sad that I have had to concentrate on so many of the deficiencies and problems of the region. There are many good features, many good firms and many high levels of productivity that benefit Britain. If the Government want to suc-

ceed in realising the achievements that the Secretary of State for Industry outlined, they will have to give the Northern region hope for the future. That will be necessary if the enterprise and initiative that they want to see are to flower forth and result in jobs.
My hon. Friend the Member for Consett (Mr. Watkins) tells me that there are about 3,700 steel redundancies in the offing in his area. Those redundancies will not be avoided by developing private enterprise, tax cuts and the plethora of promises in the Tory manifesto.
The whole of the Northern region is Consett writ large. Towns such as Consett and Hartlepool will not respond to blathering about tax incentives and other Tory dogma. We need firm Government initiative, financial support and other support of the sort that was provided by the previous Labour Government. That is what will help to revive the region, and that is what we are asking for this afternoon.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): The attendance in the Chamber indicates that this is an important subject and that many right hon. and hon. Members will wish to catch my eye. A self-denying ordinance on speeches would be not only fair but generally welcomed by the House.

Sir William Elliott: First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Thornaby (Mr. Wrigglesworth) on the manner in which he delivered his speech and on the content of the first part of it, with which I have no disagreement. Of course, I have disagreement with many of the comments in the second part his speech.
Both sides of the House are at one—I refer to right hon. and hon. Members who represent the region—in appreciating its peculiar and particular problems. We have tried jointly over quite a period to solve those problems, and not without success. It was fair of the hon. Member for Thornaby to suggest that there is much in the Northern region of which we may be proud. We have some fine firms, some good employers, and some splendid work forces. However, our problems remain.
I took issue with the hon. Gentleman when he suggested that the policies of the


past eight months have brought all the troubles upon our heads. Let us take the period since the war as part of our consideration. The representation of the Northern region in this place has not, I am sorry to say, changed all that much during that period. Until the general election I used to say, from an almost solitary position on the Opposition Benches, that that was a temporary embarrassment. I have stopped saying that for a while. I shall start again presently.
The years since the war have seen Conservative Governments and Labour Governments in office for an equal number of years. Representation during that period may be divided in two between Conservative and Labour Governments. There has been as much Labour Government as Conservative Government. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends will accept at least a measure of any responsibility that there may be for any troubles in the region being due to Government action. I put a rather different aspect to the matter. Both major parties have tried to solve the problems of the region.
I was sorry that the hon. Gentleman returned to raising, once again, Lord Hailsham's visit to the region in the early 1960s. I accompanied Lord Hailsham on his visit. The day that he bought that cloth cap was the stormiest of days—rather like today—and I assure the hon. Gentleman that the only thing that would have stayed on his head was the cap that he bought. That incident has given the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues something to say in successive debates over the years.
The Hailsham report has been the blueprint for regional development, not only in the Northern region but in every development area in Britain. The report's recommendations were fully noted and acted upon by both Conservative and Labour Governments. Our region would be in a much worse position without that report.
The problem of the Northern region is one of declining industry. The hon. Member for Thornaby did not need to seek the guidance of my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) if he required information on the declining numbers employed in the coal mining industry.

Mr. George Grant: The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Sir W. Elliott)—who is one of my constituents—understands the problems of the Northern region. However, the number employed in the mining industry has declined from 50,000 to 7,000 despite the success or otherwise of regional policy from Lord Hailsham onwards. Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House why the Government, with all the problems that we face—such as youth unemployment and general unemployment figures between 10 and 15 per cent.—decided to reduce the status of the area from special development area status to development area status, with all the attendant losses?

Sir W. Elliott: I shall be delighted to try to answer that question. I appreciate that the hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. Grant)—who is my representative in the House—feels strongly about the problems of his constituency. So do I. I was born in that constituency and I know it well. After a number of years of Labour Government, what have been the results of the emphasis on aid during that period? Did the Labour Government solve the problem of unemployment in the North-East? The answer is "No". During 17½ years of both Labour and Conservative Governments, it would not be unreasonable or unfair—but accurate—to say that under periods of Labour Government unemployment in the country, especially in the Northern region, has risen. During periods of Conservative Government, unemployment has fallen.
The Government were elected to change the course of our economic policy.

Mr. Giles Radice: They were not elected in the Northern region.

Sir W. Elliott: I accept that we did not have the electoral success in the Northern region that we had in other parts of the country, but we did not do too badly. I am sure that it has not escaped the attention of the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Radice) that I am still a Member. With most of his hon. Friends, the hon. Gentleman is aware that an enormous effort was made by the Labour Party in the Northern region to prevent my return to the House, but here I stand today.
The Government were elected with a mandate to change the country's economic course because the policies introduced and followed by the previous Labour Administration had failed to bring about economic recovery. We must consider problems, and consider them fairly. We are trying to prevent an imbalance between the regions. We tried to do so in a previous period in office, as did the previous Labour Government. I give them full credit for trying. They failed. We shall try to succeed.
The problems of the region are mainly those of declining industry. It is not only mining that is affected, but shipbuilding, heavy engineering and, currently, the enormous problems faced particularly by Consett of a declining steel industry. The CBI report published today suggests that we need 2·5 million new jobs in Britain during the next 10 years. Everyone attending the debate knows that a substantial proportion of those new jobs is needed in the Northern region. I welcome the report, especially the passage that suggests that we need full co-operation between management and workers in every industry and at every level in every industry if we are to overcome our economic ills.
There is a brighter side to the Northern region. There are many good examples of co-operation between management and workers. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Thomas), who is in his place, knows that that appertains to North-East industries. I have respect for the present union and management approach within Vickers Elswick in Newcastle. The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Brown), who is also in his place, is working with me in an attempt to help that firm. It is essential to get the size of industries right. It is no use any of us, in this debate or any other, imagining that the taxpayer in successful industry can continue to maintain unsuccessful industry in its present size.
As a Parliament and as a Government, we must have the courage to accept that nationally, in our main industries, we will have smaller work forces in heavy industry. The Opposition must accept that in the name of their responsibility. It is essential to get that right and to ensure that our industry becomes internationally

competitive. It is no good continuing to bury our heads in the sand.
Redundancy is dreadful, and we all hate it. There is nothing that I dislike more than receiving a redundant worker, or body of workers—men in their forties and fifties—who see little hope of re-employment. The worst part of my job as a Member of Parliament is trying to give hope and comfort to such workers. We have plenty of them in the Northern region.
Big industry would be welcome in our region. There was enormous disappointment about Inmos. However, do not let us cry into our silicon chips. Do not let us forget that there will be considerable spin-off industry. Do not let us cry "Wolf" too often. Do not let us run down our region. It is ready to receive—and will receive thankfully—any spin-off industry from the main establishment.
It is tragic to learn that at Consett there are to be about 3,700 probable redundancies.

Mr. David Watkins: Definite.

Sir W. Elliott: Definite, then.
The answer lies in small industry and its development. I welcome the fact that in the Consett area is a site of 80 acres owned by the English Industrial Estates Corporation on which two factories are already under construction. That trading estate is known as Consett No. 1. I hope that before very long it will be occupied as the Government's economic policy gets under way, as I am sure it will, and we get industrial expansion and overcome the awful legacy of the Labour Government. Then, perhaps, we can reduce the minimum lending rate, which I very much agree is troubling small and medium businesses.
I hope that the hon. Member for Thornaby realises that presidents of associations and individual business men are not writing only to Labour Members. They write to me every day asking why money costs so much and why they have to pay so dearly for their overdrafts. The answer is that inflation—it was rampant inflation that this Government inherited from their predecessors—must be kept under control and the only method is initially to control the money supply.
The only way in which MLR could have been lower in these last nine months


is if the Government had cut public spending, which has reached excessive proportions, much more than they did; they were not prepared, for social reasons, to do so. When we get bank lending under control and interest rates down, we shall get the right measure of industrial expansion which is needed for the region.
It is said that small business is not the answer, that we want something big. Heaven help us if we had not had the trading estates in the North-East of England, if we had not had the Team Valley trading estate, the very first and the best of the lot, which was established in the 1930s by a Conservative Government and within which is the headquarters of the English Industrial Estates Corporation. Heaven help the Northern region if it had not had the small employers in the trading estates.
We want more such employers. I am encouraged, as I know the corporation is—its chairman and officers have told me so with great emphasis—that clause 9 of the Industry Bill, which is now before the House, will take the shackles off that corporation. It was ridiculous that such a corporation, with its extensive knowledge and considerable expertise, should, as an official told me, in the Labour Government's time, have been able to "indicate" to an incoming employer where the factories were but not persuade him which one to take. He said "We can give guidance about where the factories are but we cannot advise where the companies should go." The Industry Bill takes the shackles off the corporation.
There lies the main answer to the hon. Member's suggestion of a development agency. We have had far too many agencies, costing far too much, crossing wires one with another and duplicating one another's activities. I dread the thought of a development agency with an immense bureaucracy, its cost and the way in which it will hamper the EIEC, which is the body that can do most for our region.

Dr. Keith Hampson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the origin of the development agency was the inability of the Labour Government to ensure the loyalty of their North-East Members in the face of the devolution proposals for Scotland?

Sir W. Elliott: Yes, indeed. At the time of the Labour Government's proposals, there were two periods when we were threatened—I emphasise that word—with a Parliament just over the border in Scotland, which would have had civil servants, at goodness knows what cost, a press lobby and various arms and agencies. Of course, some Labour Members honourably objected to it—and thank goodness it did not come about. I agree that it was then that the development agency for the Northern region would have been essential. Now it is superfluous, just another layer of bureaucracy. The answer lies not in another advisory body or another batch of civil servants but in lower taxation, the encouragement of worker and manager alike to produce more in real terms.

Mr. Gordon A. T. Bagier: Does the hon. Member's scathing description of the possible northern development agency represent his view of the present Welsh and Scottish agencies?

Sir W. Elliott: As I have said to the hon. Member in debate and privately, any form of devolution should have related to the country as a whole. Any development agencies should be evenly spread over this small island. If we had had a northern development agency for Northumberland, Durham and Cumberland in the last few years, does anyone imagine that Humberside would not have charged in to demand one? What about one for Merseyside? How many development agencies would we have ended up with? Development agencies for restricted areas—Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland or the development areas—are not the answer.
I am encouraged to know that the EIEC has begun building what it calls "mini factories". There are 44 factories under construction at the moment—22 of 500 sq. ft. and 22 of 1,000 sq. ft. These units are expected to be completed by May. Even more encouraging, there is considerable demand for them by tenants. I know that these factories will not employ hundreds—they will employ scores, groups of 60, 30 or even 10—but this is the answer to our unemployment problem. It is not a quick answer but it is a real and distinct one. Employment in these factories will be real and not synthetic. All power to the EIEC and to our trading estates in the region. I hope


that the Industry Bill will do a great deal to improve our employment position.
There is a great deal still to do with regard to training. For many years now I have advocated in debates in the House and elsewhere linking the education system, for the boys and girls who will not go beyond O-level, to some form of training for industry. Once, in the company of the right hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), I took part in a broadcast in Sunderland, in a school hall filled with unemployed young people. The headmaster said, when I made this suggestion in the broadcast, that it was no part of the education system to train people in industrial skills and that the system's role was to teach young people to think.
I accepted that then and I accept it today, but it is desirable to do something rather than have so many young people suddenly ejected from the schools into the streets of the North-East without any skills at all. Every evening, the Newcastle evening newspaper has columns of advertisements for vacancies requiring skills which are just not there. We must do more about training.
We must continue to lower taxation and do something about capital taxation. The effect of capital taxation on small and medium employers is savage. It is ridiculous that because of capital taxation the would-be enterprising business man, the entrepreneur, is not given any encouragement to build up a business which he can pass on to his children. That must be altered. It is desirable that people be allowed to build up capital to pass on to their children.
I have spoken for longer than I intended. It was suggested at the beginning of my speech that I was filibustering. I was not, although I acknowledge that I have had to filibuster in the past. I welcome, as do the Conservative Government, a further debate on the problems of the Northern region. We should never see our problems in isolation. The only way in which the Northern region will have the prosperity for which we all long, and a reasonable level of employment for which we all long, is if the national economic policy of the Government is working. There is every hope that the Government will succeed with their economic policy. There is, therefore, every hope for the future of the Northern region.

Mr. Jack Dormand: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. At the beginning of the debate you understandably called upon hon. Members to make brief speeches. You also pointed out the heavy Labour representation in the Northern region. The hon. Gentleman made a speech which lasted for 27 minutes. May I ask you to repeat your call for short speeches?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not need to repeat it, but I underline it.

Mr. T. W. Urwin: In eight short months of Conservative Government, the whole nation has had good cause to regret the decision of last May, not least in regard to regional policy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thornaby (Mr. Wrigglesworth) was right to introduce the subject of unemployment figures and vacancy figures of the various regions. It is a stark tragedy that the Northern region has been at the top of the unemployment league for so long. The figure for the Northern region is 8·5 per cent., while the figure for the South-East is 3·5 per cent. The difference is wider now than it might have been had Labour policies been continued, even over such a short period. There is only one vacancy for every 12 unemployed persons in the Northern region, as against three vacancies for every unemployed person in the South-East.
Regrettably, Inmos decided to site its first production unit in the South-West. The unemployment figure in the South-West is 5·6 per cent. and there is a vacancy ratio of 1 in 6. The figure is much lower in Bristol. That is a compelling case for greater preferential treatment for the Northern region, and for development areas as a whole, than the Government are so far specifying, despite the eloquent and vociferous South-East lobby.
Bearing in mind the Conservative Party's election manifesto and the promise to adopt a strong regional policy, we should reflect on developments so far. My hon. Friend the Member for Morpeth (Mr. Grant) and my hon. Friend the Member for Thornaby referred to the policy changes on the redesignation of special development areas and the crippling effect on industrial development


in the Northern region because of the lifting of restrictions on industrial development certificates. The reduction of industrial incentives in the Northern region will be approximately one-third of the present level by 1981.
Inmos took an unforgivable decision. The Northern region worked prodigiously in order to secure the siting of the production unit in the North. The time is opportune now, not in six months' or two years' time, to announce the location of the next production unit and to redeem the promise made by the previous Labour Government that the units would be sited in development areas. We would have been less unhappy if the unit had been sited in Scotland, Wales or even Merseyside rather than Bristol. The Government must intervene in such important policy issues. They have an inescapable responsibility to the development areas.
I turn briefly to recent decisions that have been taken in the Department of Energy, not least the decision to site the first coal liquefaction plant in Wales rather than in the Northern coalfields. My hon. Friend the Member for Easing-ton (Mr. Dormand) and I made extensive efforts to try to persuade both the Labour Government, before the election, and the incoming Conservative Government to site those plants in the Durham coalfield, but without success. I ask the Minister to consult his right hon and hon. Friends and to ensure that the Northern region is not forgotten when further decisions are made on the siting of such plants.
I refer to the influence of the British Steel Corporation on regional policy, and I permit myself the luxury of a brief reference to the present strike. I suggest to the Government that the decision by BSC to offer a derisory 2 per cent. to the steel workers was provocative. By doing so, it deliberately precipitated the strike, which is having and will continue to have a grave and damaging effect on the economy, as well as on unemployment in the Northern region. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Consett (Mr. Watkins) will enlarge on that.
Sir Charles Villiers appears to be comfortably wearing the mantle of a voluntary disciple of the Government's free enterprise system in his policy of import-

ing coking coal. There is a case for Government intervention in that policy. Ultimately, thousands of jobs in the coal mining industry will be at risk, not least in my constituency, if the BSC is allowed to continue with that seriously damaging policy. It does so on the pretext that there is some justification for importing coking coal for quality reasons and for mixing with indigenous coal.
There can be little justification for extending those imports on the basis of the price argument. The National Coal Board has always bought and continues to buy its steel from the British Steel Corporation. I cannot see why the BSC does not buy British coal rather than importing it from abroad, especially as a fairly paltry sum of £20 million would be required as a subsidy towards the coal industry. The callous disregard of the Government in failing to intervene in this area will mean that eventually serious damage will be done to the coal industry as we know it at present. I suggest to the Minister that a subsidy even of this small proportion would be nothing in comparison with the figure of about £290 million by which the West German Government subsidise their coal industry.
The construction industry presents a very gloomy picture. There is very low activity. Hon. Members are in receipt of correspondence from all sections of the construction industry. We are quite properly reminded that the industry is always the first to be hit by economic recession and always the last to recover when the economy begins to improve. Thousands of building workers are on the dole. Priceless skills are being wasted and lost. Some of these workers will never return to the construction industry.
In the midst of all this, the Government's housing policy, among other things, appears to be based solely upon the sale of council houses. Intolerable problems will be created for local authorities if they are to be forced to sell council houses. The policy will not produce an extra brick. It will not produce an extra job for a bricklayer or for any other person wishing to practise his skills in the construction industry.
In the civil engineering section of the industry, with the Kielder reservoir and other projects rapidly reaching conclusion and the Tyneside metro in its final stages, there is little, if anything, of a substantial


nature available to absorb vital resources which are at present lying unused in the industry.
I reinforce the call made at the Dispatch Box by my hon. Friend the Member for Thornaby for the establishment of a northern development agency. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Sir W. Elliott) about fragmentation. I say now what I said at least 15 months ago—that what the Northern region needs as much as and perhaps more than anything else is co-ordination. A northern development agency is surely as important to the Northern region—with the highest unemployment rate of the whole country, including all the development areas—as is an agency to Scotland or to Wales. It would at least provide the opportunity for co-ordinating resources in the Northern region in regard to procurement and the relocation of industry to the general advantage of the region.
The setting up of such an agency is the declared policy of the Labour Party. I have no doubt that had we won the election in May last year the agency would have been set up by now. The Conservative Party's pledge to pursue a strong regional policy has so far meant nothing. There is nothing that we can see at present or in terms of future developments to justify the use of the pledge in the Conservative manifesto last May. The Conservatives have said from time to time that they are better at playing this game than we are, but all the evidence is contrary to that. This is the time at which the Government should redeem that pledge. They should pursue a strong regional policy, especially as there is a quite distinct two-nation syndrome in this country.
The Northern region did not vote for a Conservative Government, and the Northern region will continue to reject the negative regional policies so far embarked upon by a Government who apparently do not recognise the real depth and seriousness of the problems with which we are confronted.

Mr. David Watkins: When the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Sir W. Elliott)addressed the House, he rightly pointed out that, as we all know, there are long-standing problems in the Northern region. When the hon. Gentleman went on to contrast

the performances of Labour and Tory Governments, it was almost as if his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury just before Christmas, in presenting the public expenditure Estimates, had not announced that the Government were organising for increased unemployment.
By the very nature of the Northern region's long-standing problems, it is bound to be more seriously hit than any other region in the country. At the last general election, Labour candidates throughout the Northern region pointed out that the election of a party that was standing on the manifesto that the Tory Party was then putting before the country would result in the turning of the Northern region into an industrial wasteland. In the eight months which have passed since then, every word that we said has already proved to be absolutely right.
Every hon. Member who has spoken in the debate so far has referred to my constituency. In that election, I especially pointed out that the election of a Tory Government would mean the closing down of the Consett steelworks. Exactly as I forecast, the works is to be closed, with devastating consequences for the very fabric of life in an entire community. I propose to devote the remainder of my short speech to indicating that that is an indefensible action.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: I take the serious point that my hon. Friend is making. With regard to the closure of the Consett steelworks and other major closures in the Northern region, is he aware that there are no fewer than eight Conservative Members representing seats in the Northern region and yet only the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Sir W. Elliott) is present?

Mr. Watkins: My hon. Friend is right in drawing attention to the attendance in the Chamber.
I should like to resume the point that I was making about Consett. It is a town that is totally dependent on one industry, and 3,700 steel workers will be put out of work. But, in addition to the 3,700, several thousand other people will be put out of work in industries and occupations totally dependent on the steel industry in the town.
The Secretary of State for Industry was in the North-East on Saturday, and he made a point of saying that Consett is in a special development area and, therefore, it can attract grants. But the fact is that Consett has been in a special development area ever since an earlier Labour Government invented the concept of special development areas. In my constituency, even before the fatal steel industry closure, 15,000 coal mining jobs had disappeared because of the running down of the mining industry. That was why it was made a special development area. Yet, even with the maximum available inducements for the establishment of new industries, only about one new job has been created for every five that have been lost. I put the point positively that there must be far greater Government support in improved communications and in the provision of sites and factory buildings. It is ludicrous that at present there are just two small factories under construction in an area that is facing such industrial devastation. If the whole area is not to become derelict, much more assistance must be given in order to help the area to help itself. The resources locally are totally inadequate to deal with a problem of such magnitude without outside support.
There is another aspect of the matter that needs to be stressed. The thousands of people who are to be deprived of their livelihoods are all taxpayers. By destroying their livelihood, the Government are depriving the country of tax revenue. By closing the steel plant, they are depriving the county and district councils of millions of pounds of rate revenue. The consequence must be either huge increases in rates or huge cuts in essential public services. All this is being done in the name of a Government who are hypocritically purporting to be protecting taxpayers and ratepayers. It is even worse than it sounds, because the consequences are that, in place of all this loss of public revenue, there will be an increase in public expenditure on a vast scale in redundancy payments, unemployment pay and social security payments in general.
As I have said, there is no justification for any of this, because what is being shut down is not an old, unproductive plant which is running at a loss but, on the contrary, a highly modern plant where

tens of millions of pounds have been spent on modernisation, and where 2,500 jobs have already been done away with, with the full co-operation of the trade unions and the work force.
The result of all that exercise—which, of itself, has been a traumatic experience in an area which is so heavily dependent upon one industry—is a pattern of high productivity and rising profitability. Productivity expressed as metric tonnes per man year is at least 100 tonnes above the British average and it is as good as any and better than most anywhere in the whole of Europe. Following the conclusion of the exercise of demanning and modernisation, in the last four months of 1979 the profits made at the works were running at a rate of a rising £2 million a year.
The steel workers of Consett were given specific promises. They were told "Increase productivity, reduce the labour force, and the future will be assured." They responded magnificently to that call. The result is that they have been rewarded with betrayal. It is not only the betrayal of steel workers. It is the betrayal of an entire community.
How dare the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Industry stand at the Dispatch Box, as he did last Thursday, and accuse my constituents of trying to get something for nothing? How dare he say that increased productivity is intensely in the interests of the workers when, where they have so co-operated, this is the response they have received? How dare he come to the North-East, as he did on Saturday, and say "Let the people of Consett decide their own future, the Government will help" when, having already sacrificed so much to help themselves, they have been rewarded with betrayal on a scale that amounts to sheer depravity?
Time is pressing, and I shall conclude my remarks. As my hon. Friend the Member for Thonaby (Mr. Wrigglesworth) said, there is in Consett a very severe situation, but it is only a reflection of what is happening in the Northern region as a whole as a result of the Government's unworkable monetarist theories.
The Government are a disaster for Consett. They are a disaster for the Northern region. They are a disaster and, indeed, a growing danger to the whole country.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Richard Crawshaw): I call the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Lee).

Mr. John Lee: rose—

Mr. Dormand: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. At the beginning of the debate, the occupant of the Chair asked hon. Members to be very brief in their speeches. My hon. Friends have been brief. This debate concerns the problems of the Northern region. The constituency of the hon. Member you have just called to speak is not even in the region. Would it not be a scandal if that hon. Member were to take precious time in a half-day debate to contribute to the debate?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: As the hon. Member knows, the Chair tries to maintain an even balance, and I think that my predecessor in the Chair called two hon. Members from the Opposition Benches. I think that he was trying to keep the balance. It is not unfair to call an hon. Member from the Government Benches, even if he does not happen to represent part of the area.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to pursue this matter, but I made a point in an intervention, when my hon. Friend the Member for Consett (Mr. Watkins) was speaking, in which I said that there were eight Conservative Members representing seats in the Northern region. I wish to put the record straight. There are, in fact, nine Conservative Members who represent such seats. Three of them are Ministers, and not one of those Ministers has had the decency to attend to listen to at least the opening speeches. I think that it is quite monstrous that the Chair should select speakers from regions other than the Northern region.

Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The point of order will be noted. We are wasting the time of hon. Members who wish to speak.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not think that you were

in the Chair when the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Sir W. Elliott) observed that in the past he had had to filibuster on occasions such as this because it was not possible to keep a balance with so few Conservative Members in the region. He said that he had no need to do so today because others were available on the Government Benches. I hope that that point has been brought to your notice, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Donald Thompson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Opposition spokesman broadened the debate to include the Lake District and the Pennines. We read the Order Paper very carefully. It does not say "the Northern economic planning area". It refers to the Northern area—which is anywhere north of Watford.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chair will bear in mind what has been said and will exercise its discretion to make sure that those who should be involved in this debate are called to speak.

Mr. John Lee: I appreciate that in a debate on the Northern region the majority of speeches will naturally be oriented towards the North-East. Nevertheless, I have always accepted that Lancashire is part of the Northern region. Indeed, by the definition of the right hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Urwin), who spoke of there being two halves to the country, the North and the South. I and my constituency fall within that northern half. Therefore, I welcome the opportunity of making a few remarks in the debate.
Labour Members are totally obsessed by grants, development agencies and Government subsidies. What they fail to realise is that the majority of businesses are essentially created by the drive, initiative and effort of one man, or possibly two men. It may well be that as a particular business develops it is sold out to a larger group and perhaps becomes a branch or subsidiary of that group. It may well be that its local connection tends to wither somewhat. Nevertheless, businesses that are created in particular regions retain a connection with those regions.
I am glad that the present Government's policy is directed towards helping


the areas and the regions in the most need. I am conscious that my constituency has lost its intermediate are status. I emphasise that, although we have lost that status, we want to see two things. First, we want to see the continuance of derelict site grants when our regional aid is phased out in 1982. Secondly—and this is most important for all of the Northern region—we want to see good communications. I mention specifically the M65 motorway, which is crucial to the development of north-east Lancashire.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Sir W. Elliott) and one or two other hon. Members have talked about small businesses. One of the encouraging features of the economy at present is the rate at which small factory units are being taken up. I am pleased that the present Government are encouraging the smaller business. I remind the House again of a survey which was carried out in America fairly recently, covering a recent decade. That found that about two-thirds of the new jobs which had been created were created by firms employing fewer than 20 people.
Steel, shipbuilding and coal have been mentioned. I want to talk about a predominantly regional industry—the textile industry. In the textile industry—this also has some application to the North-East—we are getting a textile mill closure virtually every other day. Only a fortnight ago we had a major Courtaulds closure—the Stanroyd mill in Colne, in my constituency. I draw the attention of the House to a letter which I received within the last few days from one of the ablest younger textile men in the industry. He writes that the textile industry is
currently going through the worst crisis that I can ever remember. Not only is domestic consumption at an all time low, but also imports are coming in on an ever increasing scale. I fear that 1980 will show a list of casualties in our industry from which we may not recover.…Altogether the picture is very distressing.
It is a tragedy that an industry like the textile industry, which has such good labour relations, which has improved productivity and has substantially reinvested and re-equipped, is not getting the support that it deserves.
We have a massive and over-inflated public sector, and we on the Government Benches are concerned to decrease it.

While it is so substantial, we need a positive policy to buy British in the interests of the nation as a whole, and particularly the Northern region, which would give manufacturers, particularly of textiles, the benefit of long runs of a product line.
Rising unemployment in the regions, particularly where there is a significant minority community, provides fertile ground for extremism, whether of the Left or the Right. In Nelson and Colne within the past week we have for the first time been subjected to a considerable leafletting campaign by the National Front, which is a most unpleasant start to the 1980s.

Mr. Ernest Armstrong: The debate on the problems of the Northern region has been continuing over the past half century. One of my predecessors, the late Joe Batey, in the latter part of the 1920s, talked about unemployment in West Durham and the problems of the mining industry. Between 1919 and 1939, 1½ million people left Scotland, Wales and the Northern region—and I mean the Northern region that we are debating today—for the more affluent parts of the country, the South and the Midlands.
During my lifetime, unemployment in our area has always been more than twice the national average. For example, in 1935the male unemployment rate in West Durham stood at 51 per cent., while in London it was 4 per cent., so the gap between the North and South has always existed.
I shall not make the speech that I prepared and go into details of incentives, but I wish to make a political speech, which is unusual for me. I tell the Minister and the Government that the situation in the Northern region is unacceptable.
During the war, the coalition Government considered the kind of society that we wanted after the war, and they came to the firm conclusion that it was economically sensible and socially just to iron out the gap between the regions. After the war, as a nation—and not just one political party—we were determined to have a vigorous regional policy which would stop the population drift and give those who were growing up in every region equal access to the necessities of life and those things that contribute to its


quality. We determined that we would no longer tolerate the breaking up of communities and the destruction of family life that unemployment brought to the Northern region in the 1920s and 1930s. In the old days decent men and women were treated as semi-criminals because they were unemployed and poor, and we hoped to end all that.
Since the war, successive Governments, with varying degrees of success and of enthusiasm, at least followed that policy—and the visit of Lord Hailsham, which has been referred to, is an indication that it was a policy followed by all Governments. I am concerned about the growing feeling in the Northern region that the Government have turned their backs on that policy and on the people in the Northern region.
Economic reality is important, but in the Northern region we are sick and tired of being lectured from the Conservative Front Bench about economic reality. We have lived with economic reality throughout our lives and know that we cannot have an economically successful nation if social justice is ignored. As my hon. Friend the Member for Consett (Mr. Watkins) said, the obsession with a monetary policy and market forces has led the Government to forget social justice. A regional policy is not a short-term expedient. It has to be a continuing and integral part of Government policy. We know from experience that it is necessary to run hard in order to stand still where job creation is concerned.
I put it to the Minister in this way. On Saturday I addressed some men in their middle fifties, who had left school at 14 and gone straight to the pits. In those days there was no security and plenty of unemployment, and some of them have worked in four different pits. They have been made redundant and had to move. There was no unrest. They moved. They then went to the textile industry and have been made redundant yet again. Those men cannot be accused of being militant, and there have been no bad industrial relations or complaints of low productivity They are decent, hard-working, law-abiding men, who are anxious to contribute to the national good as well as provide for their families. What does the Minister think their reaction is when they hear the Prime Minister talking of the

work-shy syndrome? How does he think that such men react to the Secretary of State for Industry, who talks blandly about "the British disease" and people in my constituency who "want something for nothing"?
We are not here with the begging bowl; far from it. The Northern region has a great deal to contribute to the well-being of the nation. We have a good work force. We have the ability to make a contribution, and all that we ask is the opportunity to make it.
As a sad commentary on society in 1980, on Saturday a man who has spent his life in local government said to me "People like me are law-abiding and believe in law and order and democracy, but we have come to the conclusion that the only language this Government understand is that of violence. They only listen to stones thrown through a window or the people who go out on the streets."
That is a sad commentary. I assure the Minister that the people of the Northern region are law abiding, but there is growing cynicism that is leading to bitterness and anger. We believe that the policy followed by successive Governments is being sabotaged by this Government. I warn the Minister and the Government that our people will not tolerate a return to the situation that we accepted in the 1920s and 1930s, when communities were destroyed and families broken up.
I want to hear from the Minister that the Government have a positive commitment to a vigorous regional policy. The economic well-being of the nation that we all seek can be achieved only if all sides of industry are given the opportunity, and the Government's actions, for example, over Inmos, are convincing our people that the Government do not have the necessary commitment. However, if we are given the opportunity to work out our own prosperity and preserve the way of life in which we believe, we shall respond.

Mr. A. J. Beith: I congratulate the hon. Member for Thornaby (Mr. Wrigglesworth) on his forceful speech with which, I think, there was widespread agreement. There was scarcely anything in his remarks with which I disagreed and I am grateful to


him for referring to some of the problems that we face in the Alnwick and Amble district. Indeed, I disagreed with the hon. Gentleman only when he spoke about a North-East development agency. It would have been better if such a project had been undertaken by the previous Labour Government when we had many Northern Labour Members who could have put their weight behind it. We did not get it from that Government and it comes ill to have so much emphasis placed on it now.
I represent the northernmost part of the Northern region and it lies north of a great deal of Scotland. We face all the problems that we feel get closer attention from Governments when they occur on the other side of the border. We have experienced a massive cutback in regional aid, with the withdrawal of all development area assistance from the Berwick area and all but the most nominal aid, ultimately, from the Alnwick and Amble area, which has an unemployment rate of well over 8 per cent. That has not been merely a paper transaction.
We have seen the effects of the Government turning their backs on our area. The practical effects have been demonstrated in our attempts to secure the siting of a major project in the Alnwick area. An international company wanted to site its pharmaceutical research headquarters in Alnwick, and we hope that the project will still come to us, but the fight has become much more difficult since regional grants were withdrawn. That company's major investment programme was based on regional aid that it expected to receive. It had alternative opportunities to site that project in other European countries and was offered substantial inducements to do so. We hope that we shall get the project in Alnwick and that we shall get more Government co-operation and specific assistance for it. The episode is a practical illustration that the withdrawal of development aids will make it much harder to get industry into our region.
It might not be so bad for us if the system of regional aid had been completely abandoned. Other areas would have had reason to complain, but we in the north of Northumberland can see that development aids are still available for areas that are more prosperous and are

provided with more jobs than is our area. Even within our own county, we see that areas, such as Cramlington, which have already had substantial investment, and prosperous suburban areas such as Ponteland and Darras Hall, on the outskirts of Newcastle, have substantial development aid that is not available to our area, which has severe unemployment and special problems.
When we look over the border, we see the strongly financed and strongly supported Scottish Development Agency which has considerable powers to attract the very industries that we may be trying to secure for our area.
We have considerable reason to be grateful for the industrial development programmes of the Development Commission and its daughter organisation the Council for Small Industries in Rural Areas. They have been of enormous help to us in the rural parts of the Northern region and we want that help to continue.
It is remarkable that there should still be an element of suspicion about whether the Government regard those bodies as quangos which should be axed or as bodies doing a worthwhile job which should be maintained. It is time that we had a firm announcement that they are to continue their work, which they do economically and which is particularly helpful to small business and industry. We want to be assured that finance for that work will continue to be available.
The abandonment of development aid for areas that badly need it might be easier to understand if the Government had succeeded in creating the different industrial climate upon which they base their case for making a change. The nub of the Government's case is that by removing development aid, by other fiscal measures and by their general handling of the economy they will create a climate in which business, large and small, will prosper.
I would be hard put to find any business man in the Northern region who believed that we were anywhere near that position. The existence of 20 per cent. interest rates is a clear demonstration that we are a long way from that position, even if the Government have it in their power to create it.
The Government cannot escape the blame for 20 per cent. interest rates. They are, in large part, the product of a high


inflation rate, but the Government are not prepared to tackle inflation by means of an incomes policy. The faults of the previous Administration may have been numerous, but one thing on which we were prepared to support it was on incomes policy through which it was able drastically to reduce the level of inflation and to hold down interest rates. The abandonment of that policy will make life difficult for small businesses and will make it impossible to create a climate in which business can prosper in the absence of the aids that the region has previously received.
The effects of many other Government policies make it difficult for industry to prosper in a region such as ours. The Northern region has substantial urban areas, but also massive rural areas. The region stretches from Berwick on the North-East coast of England to Westmorland and the southern shores beyond the Lake District. In that huge area there are massive problems of rural depopulation and unemployment. Many policies will bear hard upon those problems.
For example, the Government's plans to charge for transport for children who live a long way from school will have a major impact on firms trying to attract or keep labour in rural areas. Think of the impact of that policy on agriculture, for example, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The more that agriculture reduces its labour force, the more serious will be our unemployment problems in rural areas. Who will be able to afford to stay on industrial and agricultural wages in rural areas if they have to pay substantial sums to get their children to school?
If the Government decide to leave no discretion to rural local authorities over the sale of council houses and make no provision to keep a number of council houses in our villages, what will happen to the employees of small businesses in rural areas? The only houses that will be available will be those that are snapped up at high prices for second homes and retirement homes by people with far more money than those employees.
All those problems affect the infrastructure upon which industry and new businesses in rural areas depend. If the Government do not look at their policies in the light of their impact on attempts to foster industry and business in our

rural areas, their efforts, few as they are, will be in vain.
Hon. Members have referred to the need for training and re-training in skills for industries in the region, yet we find that the Government propose to close the very institutions that have been created to do that work. Skillcentres in Darlington and Mary port are scheduled for closure and an announcement is expected later this month on that subject. Surely we should be trying to maintain and expand those facilities and to make them available to those who are beyond the travelling distance to some of the existing re-training facilities.
All these infrastructure issues are crucial to us. Basic problems are involved. For example, we have had difficulties in my constituency because of under-investment in the telephone network in some of the more outlying areas where industrial estates have been built. In Berwick delays in telephone connections have been considerable. Firms have also been unable to obtain Telex connections. Such facilities are needed if one is trying to build up industrial estates that include many small firms trading in an international market. The Government cannot ignore the importance of such problems that they may regard as trifling.
We need specific aids to bring business into areas with substantial unemployment, and those aids should not have been abandoned by the Government. We need a more coherent approach to small business which has had shattered expectations. Many small business men were taken in by the impression given by the Conservatives in opposition that there would be a tremendous change in the climate for small businesses. That has not happened. We need a realisation that every aspect of Government policy can have an impact on our problems.
People in the Northern region notice that Governments are keen to offload their problems on to regions such as ours, but less keen to provide benefits. When it comes to finding somewhere to dump nuclear waste or to locate installations that no one else wants, the North-East is thought a suitable place, but when it comes to providing aid, a different approach is displayed.
People in the region are prepared to work if they can see the prospect of a


reasonable result. That willingness needs some backing. In terms of industrial prosperity, the social problems that would exist if the North-East were, in effect, closed down would be massive. The effect of trying to absorb in our cities in the South and the Midlands populations who would do a very much better job if they were given the opportunity in their own region would be appalling. I see no reason why we should go on creating problems of that kind.

Mr. Robert Banks: Any opportunity for a debate on the Northern region is welcome, and so it is today.
I suppose that it was inevitable that the approach of the Opposition should be characterised by their choice of subject—
The problems of the Northern region.
I would rather have chosen "The skills and available opportunities for new industries in the Northern region".
We have had five years of Labour Government. Looking back over that five years, we see that we are where we were when we set out originally.
The hon. Member for Thornaby (Mr. Wrigglesworth) gave us a catalogue of requests for aid and Government intervention. I found that list depressing, because we have been along that road once before. We found ourselves with a depressing list of problems, and they have been aired in this debate. We have to turn our minds to the task of talking not in the past or even of today but about how we meet the future in the Northern region.
We tend to dwell all too readily on the problems rather than on the positive elements for success. Success means employment. Employment and success mean wealth creation, and more employment and higher standards of living. The debate surely must be about that equation and how we bring about the beginnings of success.
Inevitably, in these debates we tend to draw on our experiences in our constituencies. People say to me very quickly "It is all right for you. Harrogate has only a 3·5 per cent. unemployment figure, whereas the figure for the whole of the Northern region is 8·5 per cent." There

the conversation tends to stop, except that the other person will go on to talk about his unemployment, his industrial decline, the past glories of great enterprises, and what a dismal future he can paint for the area that he represents.
I think that he should look at the success of Harrogate and realise that there is a lesson to be learnt, a lesson that is illustrated by the success of the town and the industries in it. People come to Harrogate who have made businesses, who have worked in successful businesses and who are proud of their success. We have a number of industries in Harrogate which range from steel fabrication, clothing, chemicals, food preparation and laboratories, to the construction industry. We have some of the big firms, such as Dunlopillo and ICI Fibres Research, and the Central Electricity Generating Board and the Ministry of Defence.
The lesson here is that we have a diverse range of industries, covering all sectors. I suggest that they are all successful companies in their respective areas of business.
Harrogate itself has built a reputation as a conference centre. This has been done by the minds of people of distinction who decided that the town—

Mr. Radice: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it relevant to a debate on the Northern region to have a tour of Harrogate, which is not in the Northern region at all?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand that the Harrogate area is connected with one of the industrial organisations, and I am certain that it is quite relevant to refer to it in this debate. Most of us in Lancashire think that anywhere east of the Pennines is North or North-East.

Mr. Banks: The conference centre being built in Harrogate today is not being built with Government or EEC aid; it is being built purely and simply with money provided by Harrogate. Many people say that Harrogate's success has been achieved in spite of Government aid to other areas.
The lesson is that we have to attract new and young companies. When a large company goes out of business, many people are thrown into unemployment, and it takes a very long time for new


companies to arrive at a position where they can employ the number of people who have been made unemployed. To do this requires a progressive attitude by local authorities so that they make quick decisions to capture the enthusiasm of people who wish to start up new enterprises. That means that they must be able to give quick planning decisions so that those enterprises can be made to get off the ground.
Local authorities also have to create a good environment. That is a matter of course, anyway, especially in our Northern cities. But what is important is EEC aid and how it is applied. It is important that some of that aid is channelled towards creating a better working environment and a smarter area for people to live in. I should like to see that applied to our Northern cities.
A town or a city survives on its reputation, and that reputation depends on the human element. That human element is a willingness to work not just for the wages but for the satisfaction of building a new company or keeping up the standards of a long-established firm.
This is a true element of success. It depends not only on the boss but on the unions involved. The boss can frustrate the work force by unreasonable demands and stinginess over pay. The unions can frustrate management over manning levels for new machines and procrastination over overtime for important orders, and so on. These are the makings of decline and the road towards less competitiveness, stagnation, disillusionment and probably eventual closure when taken to its limit.
If this debate has any influence at all, let it influence management to inform and to knit their people together. Let it influence unions to move to modern technology, to move with change and to co-operate in achieving more productivity so that, with success, there is profit and high wages.

I recall that in Sweden recently, where there is a wages policy, the Government announced a wage increase of 10 per cent. for the coming year. The unions did their sums. They went to the Government and said that on their calculations the best that the Government could afford was 8 per cent., bearing in mind inflation and the need to keep the real value of wages. That is a lesson that I have yet

to find in this country. We have yet to see unions going to managements and saying "The company made a loss last year. Therefore we, together with management, must keep wages to a reasonable level."
I happen not to believe in pay policies. I think that they lead to lowered expectations and the lowered recognition of skills and that they sap initiative and the will for expansion. In my view, that is one of the reasons for the position in which we find our economy today.
A number of references have been made to Government aid. I should prefer to see Government aid to the regions removed altogether, and instead a concentration on incentives to people to build new companies and lower personal taxes. We also have to seek to remove bureaucracy and some of the oppressive legislation that is bearing down on some of the smaller companies and frustrating peoples' willingness to use their time to get their firms under way.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Has the hon. Gentleman stopped to consider the number of companies exhibiting in the Harrogate trade fairs throughout the year which rely on Government grants and Government intervention not only in some cases to keep them going but in many cases for their starting-up operations? Does he wish to ignore that factor completely in a debate which is precious to hon. Members who represent constituencies in the Northern region and who desire to speak about matters of importance and not nonsense of this kind?

Mr. Banks: Indeed, I do. I should like to see us move to a time when we have no aid to any of the regions. I am not isolating the Northern region; I am talking about all the regions. This aid to all the different regions merely warps the issue. If there were no aid, people would decide where the skills were and where the chances of employing the right people for their industries lay and the sort of environment that they could offer their workers. That is the simple message, and I do not see the relevance of the number of people who come to Harrogate to exhibit their goods.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Without them, a lot of the hon. Gentleman's constituents would be unemployed.

Mr. Banks: But I think that there is a case for Government assistance in the form of research grants. It was interesting for me to visit a factory in Japan that had promoted the use of robots, now beginning to be used in industry. The firm started with a Government grant, which had continued for about nine years. As a result, it was a success and became one of the leading firms in Japan. It is not easy for small and medium-sized firms to raise money for detailed technological research. Large firms find the money out of their own pockets. There is a case, when economic circumstances permit, for the Government encouraging medium-sized firms to invest in research.
In the past we have relied on major industries in the North for our defence. We shall no doubt have to do so again. We depend on the shipbuilding industry. The defence cuts over the last five years have had a major impact on the shipbuilding industries in the North-East. I deplore this. It is essential that we maintain a strong and effective Navy. That is required as a matter of urgency now. I believe that the time will come when we shall have to go back to the shipbuilders and ask them to build ships in record time. Given that confrontation, I believe that the industry will respond as in the past. But the war that has to be fought now is for economic survival.
I believe that the North has the skill and the ability to respond, but the region needs the incentive and the backing of the Government, in the sense that they back people with initiative and those who come to terms with the situation. In this way, we shall succeed.

Mr. Don Dixon: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Thornaby (Mr. Wrigglesworth), who made such a good speech in opening the debate.
I come from, and represent, a constituency that still bears the scars and memories of the 1930s. What I see today is similar to what was seen in the 1930s, when many regions, such as the North, were turned into industrial deserts by the policies of the Government of the time. In 1931 the steelworks at Jarrow closed, throwing 3,000 men out of work. Now we have the closure of the steelworks at Consett. In 1935 the shipyards in Jarrow

closed, throwing 5,000 men on the scrap-heap. Today many shipbuilding communities face the same threat.
In the 1930s there was the same obsession about public expenditure cuts. Unemployment benefit was reduced from 17s to 15s. Today we have the clamour for taxes on short-term benefits and the stopping of indexation. In 1936 members of a deputation from my home town of Jarrow who went to see the then President of the Board of Trade, Walter Runciman, were told to go back and work out their own salvation. On Saturday evening the Secretary of State for Industry told a meeting in Newcastle "It's up to you". The philosophy of the 1930s is found in the present Government.
We have had 40 years of regional policy in various forms. Over the years we have had a mixture of stick and carrot, the stick in terms of IDCs and the carrot in the form of regional grants. Under various Governments the sticks have got either bigger or smaller and the carrots have varied in length. The present Government have reduced the size of the stick by taking the restriction off IDCs for factories of up to 50,000 sq. ft., and they have shortened the length of the carrot by taking £230 million out of regional development. If the intention of regional policy was to achieve economic parity, it has been a dismal failure, certainly in the North. In fairness to the Government, it must be said that unemployment has not arisen since May last year. It has existed for many years in the Northern region.
The policy of the Government has not helped the situation. My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) and I represent constituencies covering the area of the South Tyneside district council, the biggest single employer in the area. Seventy per cent. of local government expenditure is accounted for by wages and salaries. Any proposed cut in public expenditure will hit such areas, which already have a high unemployment percentage.
The raising of minimum lending rate will hit businesses, certainly small businesses, in the North. The terminal grant for shipbuilders, to be withdrawn in 15 months' time, will again hit constituencies such as mine that rely to a great extent on shipbuilding, ship repairing and marine engineering. The end of exchange controls and the dismantling of controls over


international industry, in so far as they ever existed, will accelerate branch factory closures from which the North has suffered for a long time. There is an old saying that if there is an economic chill we in the North catch double pneumonia. That is true.
The male unemployment rate in my constituency is 16 per cent. and rising I do not like quoting percentages too often. I have been one of that percentage. If one is in the dole queue and 100 per cent. unemployed, it is no comfort to be tapped on the shoulder and told that one is one of 14 per cent. unemployed this week compared with one of 15 per cent. the previous week. If one is unemployed, one is 100 per cent. unemployed.
Between May and November last year, over a thousand redundancies in my constituency were notified to the Department of Employment. A major blow, to which my hon. Friends have referred, is that the Inmos production unit will be going to a non-assisted area despite the promise of the previous Government.
I consider the worst aspect of industrial recession to be youth unemployment. This is destroying the seed corn of our future. Society is denying young people a job before they have had an opportunity to prove their worth. The previous Government achieved much in preparing the unemployed young people for work in various schemes under the Manpower Services Commission. By guaranteeing that young people would have a job, a training place or a place in further education, they did much to help young people. It is unbelievable that the present Government intend to cut back this type of expenditure.
In the South Tyneside district, 858 youngsters between 16 and 18 are unemployed. Of those, 408 have been in employment and 450 are school leavers who have never had a job. There are 885 youngsters taking part in the job opportunities programme. The district possesses the smallest percentage of 16-year-olds staying at school and the smallest percentage of16-year-olds taking full-time courses in further education. In areas of low wages and high unemployment, youngsters have to leave school in order to sign on the dole and get supplementary benefit. It is no good people complaining about vandalism and anti-social behaviour of the young when this is en-

couraged by increasing youth unemployment and denying young people jobs and education.
I should like the Government to introduce mandatory grants for 16-year-olds staying on at school or college, as promised by the last Government. They should increase, not decrease, the youth opportunities programme. They should increase, not decrease, the STEP programme and make more, not less, money available for manpower services in special development areas.
As there is limited time for this debate, I shall close with the advice that I gave to the Government in my maiden speech. The youth of the day are not so steeped in democracy that they will accept the solutions of the 1930s to the problems of the 1980s.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: I want to concentrate my opening remarks on my constituency, which, as a result of closure after closure in the past 12 months or so, has become almost a disaster area. We had the closure of the Tress engineering works, with the loss of 330 jobs, and then, last September, the closure of the Vickers Scots-wood plant, with the loss of 750 jobs.
Major closures such as those arouse major interest, but alongside them we had the closure of the little Pye factory, the back-street bakery employing 12, 15 or 17 people. In areas such as ours, the multiplication of the dozen jobs lost here and the 15 or 25 there amounts to more human misery, and we already have plenty of it.
In addition, we have problems with other major plants, such as Vickers at Elswick. The problem there is caused by the Government's indecision over the order for 77 Chieftain tanks, war maintenance reserve tanks for the British Army of the Rhine. It has nothing to do with Iran, so I do not want the Minister to give that excuse. Because of the indecision of Ministers in the Ministry of Defence and elsewhere, there has been no confirmation of the order, and now Vickers defence division at Elswick, with 1,600 men, is seriously threatened. It would be a mortal blow to heavy engineering on Tyneside if, following the closure of Tress and Vickers Scotwood, Vickers at Elswick should go. It would be a disaster for the area, one that we cannot contemplate.
Let us look at the social consequences of the closures. A year after the closure of the Tress factory, 100 of the men concerned were still unemployed. When a man has been unemployed for 12 months or more, he must suffer a serious loss of morale and may well need the services of a rehabilitation centre. But, at the diktat of this despicable Government—I use the word "despicable" advisedly in relation to regional policy—the Manpower Services Commission is cutting out 33 per cent. of the places in rehabilitation centres which give people the confidence, after long periods of unemployment, to face new jobs that we hope will be waiting round the corner for them.
Part of the immorality of the closure of skillcentres and rehabilitation centres is in the fact that the instructors in them are highly skilled tradesmen, who in the main are very dedicated. I think of one of my own constituents who is very dedicated and motivated by the desire to do something for his underprivileged brethren. He left a highly paid job in skilled engineering to go to a rehabilitation centre as an instructor. There is no question of his looking for a soft number. He went there because he was properly motivated. We shall lose the skills of such well-motivated people, who can do that job for people who have had the misfortune to be unemployed for long periods.
Small businesses have been mentioned. My hon. Friend the Member for Thornaby (Mr. Wrigglesworth) made an admirable contribution. I understand that the Under-Secretary of State for Industry, who is to reply to the debate, is responsible for small businesses. The Government gained power on a prospectus of doing a great deal for the small person and the small business. With interest rates at 17 per cent., we must ask what will happen to the small business. I have referred to the loss of 17 jobs in one place and 15 in another. I have ample evidence of this sort of thing in my constituency. It has happened in recent weeks because small businesses cannot face paying 21 per cent., 22 per cent. and 23 per cent. for the money they need in order to keep going.
Only last week I wrote to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury about one small firm in my constituency employing 18

people. That firm is in the insulation business, which is badly needed these days. Because of the tightness of money, it is a month behind with its tax payments. I have seen its tax returns and know that it has been paying steadily month by month, though because it is a month in arrears the Inland Revenue has withdrawn its tax exemption certificate. I hope that the Chief Secretary will get his finger out on this matter, otherwise 18 more people will be made redundant. It would be a complete injustice if that happened simply because the firm was a month in arrears.

Mr. Ted Leadbitter: That is not an isolated case. There are many such cases, and there is also evidence of increases in bankruptcies. That is the Government's policy on small businesses.

Mr. Brown: I fully accept what my hon. Friend says.
I turn briefly to the construction industry. In the Northern region the major schemes, such as the Tyneside metro scheme, the Tyneside sewerage scheme, the Keilder water scheme and the British Steel Corporation plant at Redcar, are all drawing to a conclusion. We must have major schemes to take over from them. Without such schemes, there will be further massive redundancies in the construction industry.
Instead of cutting £200 million off the roads programme, why do not the Government bring forward the Newcastle city western bypass, the Newcastle city inner ring road, the Redheugh bridge scheme and bypasses along the line of the A69 across to Cumbria from Newcastle, where many of the villages suffer misery caused by heavy traffic thundering through day and night?
In an area such as the Northern region, which has for many years suffered more than its fair share of environmental deprivation, it is reasonable to say that we should have a higher rather than a lower level of investment, but the reverse is happening in construction. Between 1970 and 1978, we in the Northern region suffered a decline of 33 per cent., compared with a national drop of 23 per cent. The region is not getting its fair share of the little that is going at present.
If the country is ever to regain a firm economic base, it must have an efficient construction industry. If the Government


have any will to make regional policy work—and I make no secret of my belief that if the views of the guru from Leeds, the Secretary of State for Industry, are the Government's views, they have no will at all to make regional policy work; I have already told the right hon. Gentleman that to his face, and he did not deny it—

Dr. Hampson: How does the hon. Gentleman reconcile that statement with the fact that the changes announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State have resulted in 80 per cent. of the population of the Northern region now falling within the assisted places category, which is more than any other region except Wales?

Mr. Brown: Because of the very fact that we have had such a raw deal, we want 100 per cent., as we had before, never mind 80 per cent.
If the Government really have any intent to have a regional policy, they could have a dual role, activating the economy in the regions by the use of the construction industry as I have suggested. It must make economic sense. After all is said and done, the supply side of the economy would be assisted because it is investment, not consumption.
On 5 December, when we debated the Government's White Paper, I said that it could well have been entitled the crucifixion of the Northern region of England. I made no apology for saying it then. I underline that the crucifixion is going apace, as it has since the introduction of that White Paper.

Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd: I am grateful for the opportunity of being called in the debate, but I am not sure whether I have any status to address the House in the eyes of the Opposition. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I should like clarification on that point, as some hon. Members are nodding and others are saying "No".
The interesting thing is that part of my constituency lies within Cumbria and part within Lancashire. That is what creates the anomaly. I see the hon. Member for White haven (Dr. Cunningham) nodding, as if to welcome me in making a contribution to the debate. I remind him that the part of my consti-

tuency that lies within Cumbria also lies within the area of North-Western Industrial Development Association, as does the constituency of the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth). Therefore, I take it that both the right hon. Gentleman and myself would be excluded from some northern development area if a future Labour Government sought to create one. [HON. MEMBERS: "No"] I am glad to be corrected. It is important that these points should be understood. By making this point clear, I hope to demonstrate an important anomaly, which all these discussions create.
The fact is that 60 per cent. of the electorate in my constituency are Lancashire people. The other 40 per cent., who are now Cumbrians, were Lancashire people, but when the county changes took place they became Cumbrian citizens.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Sir W. Elliott) indicated that if there were a northern development area there would be cries for one for Yorkshire and Humberside. How right he is. There would be cries for one for Lancashire as well.
Hon. Members, such as myself and my predecessor, have had to try to explain industrial development grants to the people of Lancashire who have not been able to obtain them. Last summer, before the Secretary of State's announcement about the change in status of regional industrial grants, Cumbrian citizens within my constituency had what was, and still is until August of next year, development area status. However, it is ultimately to become a non-assisted area. When that decision was made known to the Lancashire citizens of Morecambe, in my constituency, they felt most relieved about it.
All these discussions about northern development areas and such like create enormous problems of this kind. Representing a constituency straddling two counties and bearing, as I properly do, pressures from constituents in two counties who write to me about these matters, I can see the difficulties created by policies of this kind.
I wish to touch on another aspect of the debate, which concerns matters connected with Cumbria. I hope that the House will be reminded this afternoon that the announcement made last week


by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment indicated a modest rise in the rate support grant that will go to the shire counties. Overall, an increase of 0·7 per cent. will accrue to the shire counties. I hope that Opposition Members who represent Cumbrian constituencies will recognise that fact when they make their contributions to the debate.
There has been a suggestion that there should be a development area for the North. Those who advocate such things usually have no experience of business. I know several people in the Lancaster area who are extremely successful in attracting business to Lancashire. Those who know about business do not advocate a development area for the North. At best, it is an excuse for throwing money at the problem and not taking any action at all. At worst, it becomes a drain on public funds and a gross addition to an already overweighted bureaucracy.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: The hon. Gentleman referred to practising business men. I should point out that the northern CBI of practising business men very much supports this proposal.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I speak of those who are on a committee, which I attend, called the Lancaster Development Committee. Although it existed prior to the creation of the North-Western Industrial Development Association, it is now held under its auspices. The people who attract industry to Lancashire and are immensely successful are local business men, local chambers of commerce, active local councillors and the executive on the local authority. It does not need a nationally appointed development association to bring that about.
The real contribution that we can make to improve the situation of the North-West is to rely upon the institutions and activities that we already have. I mention the Lancaster Development Committee as an extremely successful body. I understand that it is not within the remit of the debate as Opposition Members see it, but such bodies have in the past made extremely helpful contributions. Rather than consider the creation of yet another bureaucratic institution, let us rely on those bodies that we already have.

Mr. Giles Radice: The debate has been remarkable for the number of Labour Members who have attended and for the number of Labour Members who have spoken and are to speak in it. That shows our great concern for the problems of the Northern region. The contrast between the Opposition and Government sides of the House has been glaring. We are not to have the Secretary of State to reply to the debate. The Government have sent the monkey, not the organ grinder. Very few Tory Members have spoken in the debate. Those who have spoken seem to be from Yorkshire or other parts outside the Northern region. Frankly, that shows the Tory lack of concern for the problems of the Northern region. I hope that this point will be taken up by the local press.
I want to deal with Inmos. I should like to remind the Minister why the Northern region requires Inmos. It is not just because of our high rate of unemployment, though we have the highest rate of unemployment of any region. The fact is that we need the new technologically-based industries if the North is to prosper in future. We were extremely pleased that the Labour Government were prepared to say that the production unit should go to a development area, and we had high hopes that it would come to the North. Therefore, we were bitterly disappointed by the decision—a decision basically made by the Government, because they give the industrial development certificates—to locate it in Bristol. That decision implies that Washington, where Inmos would have gone, is unable to attract management, that it does not have the high-quality housing that it in fact has and that the work force does not have the necessary skills. However, anybody who knows anything about the Northern region knows that it has the skills. In short, it is a complete slap in the face for the North.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: rose—

Mr. Radice: I shall not give way. In addition, the NEB is reneging on its regional commitments. It also shows that the Government are not serious about regional policy.

Mr. Dormand: Is my hon. Friend aware that the chairman of Inmos, who was quoted in The Observer on Sunday, said that the big problem is in recruiting senior engineering and electronics staff because such staff will not go to the industrially depressed areas? Is not that a pointer that the next manufacturing unit might not go to the Northern region?

Mr. Radice: It is a pointer. The Minister is responsible, and he should certainly explain why Inmos did not go to the North.
I raise a further point. The Manpower Services Commission has been forced to cut back on its skillcentre budget because of public spending cuts. At a time of high unemployment, those budgets should be inviolate. The Government say that skillcentres at Darlington, and at Mary-port in Cumbria—an area of very high unemployment and a rehabilitation centre at Felling should be closed. I accept that it is difficult to place people who have benefited from the skillcentres in an area of high unemployment, but the unemployment is precisely why we need the skillcentres. It is a retrograde step to close them.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Member give way?

Mr. Radice: I am not prepared to give way to frivolous interventions. The Government are going back on regional policies because of cynical opportunism. Given the election result, there are no votes in it and the Government have decided not to bother. If it is not cynical opportunism, it is ideological bias. I suspect that a bit of both is involved. It is the time for the Government to be sensible and to change their policies.

Dr. David Clark: The Northern region contains some of the most beautiful parts of the United Kingdom, and I am surprised to hear that executives will not go to the area. They do not know what they are missing. I could wax eloquent about the Cumbrian mountains, Hadrian's Wall, the Cheviots and the beautiful coastline of Northumberland and Durham. Those remain areas of beauty simply because there is no Law of the jungle. We have strict planning controls and do not allow the free market to operate in those beautiful

areas. That is why they remain beautiful and function so well.
The same must be applied to the North's industrial areas. For generations the North has supplied the power for the country. The North, Scotland and Wales supplied the coal for steam, built the ships and produced the steel. Now we are experiencing a change in technology and we are in increasing difficulty. If we leave it to the market forces, about which the Secretary of State so frequently talks, we shall be in for a severe time in the Northern region. The people will not stand for the conditions that prevailed in the 1920s and 1930s, but I suspect that we are heading in that direction.
I do not wish to deal with the industrial base, since my hon. Friends have discussed that adequately. I want to talk about public expenditure. Public expenditure relates to the quality of life. In my constituency, one man in six does not have a job, and yet the Prime Minister talks about the work-shy. Give us the work and we shall show whether we are shy. When there is unemployment and massive deprivation—and the Department of Health and Social Security's investigation shows that the North is a deprived area—public expenditure is vital to deal with the social problems.
There is grave doubt whether the last Government's policy for health resources reallocation will go ahead. When there is no growth, such a policy cannot go ahead and we shall fall further and further behind in health terms. We depend on local government. The largest employer of labour in my constituency is the local authority. On 21 December the Secretary of State sent a missive to local authorities saying that they should aim for a notional rate of 119p in the pound. The average level for Tyne and Wear authorities is already at or above that level.

Mr. W. E. Garrett: Is my hon. Friend aware that the city of Newcastle has the highest rate level of all and that the North Tyneside metropolitan council has the seventh highest rate in the country?

Dr. Clark: The high rate level is caused not by a waste of money but simply because the money is needed in such areas. The pressures to cut local expenditure can result only in a reduction in


services, mass unemployment and redundancies and the quality of life will be decimated.
I hope that the Minister will take the message to his colleagues from moderate people such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) that the Armstrong) and my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon), that the people of the North-East will not stand much longer for the present conditions. I am reminded of a novel by a former Member of the House, Jack Lawson, called "Under the Wheel". That novel is not widely read, but it is worth reading. It describes West Durham in the early part of the century and the emergence of the Labour Party. The author says that the secret service got it wrong when it went round the cellars of Manchester, Liverpool and London looking for the conspirators, those who were going to lead the revolution. The real source of the revolution was in the chapels and union lodges of the Northern region.
We preach that we must follow democratic ways. However, young people do not have our sustained belief in democracy. The Government must not press us too hard. The Government should not leave the economic fate of the Northern region to be dealt with on a free-for-all basis. We need some order, we need some discipline and we need some work.

Dr. Keith Hampson: I apologise for missing half an hour of the debate. I was dealing with a constituency case that relates to one of the problems at the centre of the debate—the problem of the small business man faced with planning permission difficulties in a semi-urban area. We all have an obligation to ensure that our local authorities do not put difficulties in the way of small business men setting up and expanding.
I hope that I shall be forgiven by Opposition Members for speaking briefly in the debate. I am one of the six Tory Members representing Tyne-Tees constituencies. I was born and educated in Bishop Auckland and have lived with the problems which Opposition Members outlined to the House today. I identify myself with many of the issues that have been brought to the attention of the House today. However, the North has

lived with these problems for a long time, and to hear some Labour Members one would imagine that they were a creation of only six months' duration. It is only fair for them to acknowledge the deep-rooted nature of the problems.
I checked the unemployment figures for Teesside, bearing in mind that it was the hon. Member for Thornaby (Mr. Wrigglesworth) who introduced the debate. When his Government left office unemployment was running at 8·7 per cent. In 1970 it was 4·7 per cent. That same situation applies across all the northern constituencies. Unemployment mounted massively during the period of Labour rule. To hear Labour Members speak, one would think there had never been bankruptcy. I ask them to think back to 1976–77. That applied not just to the Northern region. My father-in-law's firm in the West Riding of Yorkshire went bankrupt during that period. That was not a responsibility of the present Government. It is a fact of life with which all Governments have lived.
The heart of the trouble is not the regional structural problems but the fact that something is wrong with manufacturing industry and the nation at large. It is upon manufacturing that all our prosperity—not just that of the North—and our capacity to help the sick and handicapped and to build the roads, the hospitals and the schools depend. We see our overseas rivals, which we used to outpace, now outpacing us.
The decline of the proportion of the labour force engaged in manufacturing industry has very serious implications for regions such as the Northern region. It has implications for the pattern of employment, for unemployment rates, for the distribution of income, and so on. It therefore seems essential that we should not just focus on the problems of the North and on solving them within the context of the North through a northern regional development agency. It is vital that we consider how we can improve the position throughout the nation.
The key to the malaise of this country is the value of the output of manufacturing industry, and there the picture is even worse. Over a decade the value of manufacturing output has grown by 43 per cent. but that is nowhere near the increases achieved in France and Germany and all the other EEC countries.


The growing disparity between the value of British manufacturing industry's output and that of other nations in Europe is one of the central issues in this debate about the Northern region, because it is fundamentally a region of manufacturing industry. If Labour Members fail to recognise that, we shall never get anywhere.
I do not want to deal with the structural problems; I want to move from the value of goods produced to the essential ingredient of value, and that is the skill to which each region in the country can turn to ensure that our manufacturing industry turns out the products that are up with the market, that meet the demands of the market, and are of the quality that the market will buy.
I come to three aspects of that. There is a major problem with education, particularly in the North, in terms of the take-up by young people of education and training after they have left school. I do not believe that we need another regional body to co-ordinate these matters, but since Ministers from the Department of Employment and the Department of Industry are present I urge upon them the essential need—it has been long overdue under all Governments since the war—to co-ordinate efforts made through the Department of Industry for the creation of a unit to assist the educational side of training. This must also involve the Department of Employment because of the large amount of resources that go into this area through the Manpower Services Commission and the industrial training boards.
Those boards seem to be the critical cutting edge in the whole of our endeavour to improve manufacturing output in the North and other regions. The boards are taking severe cuts. They are unable to reach their establishment levels for training advisers, who are the people who go out into the field and are responsible for assisting with training and improving skill levels. They are in contrast to a lot of the MSC's structure, which is bureaucratic and far removed from day-to-day operations.
Apart from the problem of skillcentres—I acknowledge that some have been cut back or abolished—we have to consider whether we already have established in further education much of the capacity that we need for retraining which, as

Labour Members so rightly insist, is most important. This goes beyond the Department of Employment, the Department of Industry, the discretionary grants and the further education courses that the local education authorities have to offer. It also includes the Department of Health and Social Security. We often overlook the enormous resources that are available in that Department.
It is all very well for hon. Members to urge that more should be spent on particular services, but they be spent on particular services, but they must acknowledge that we are in an era of financial stringency, and we must therefore consider whether money already in the system could be used more effectively than at present. Young people can get money through the social security system by way of supplementary benefit if they take courses of less than 21 hours a week. That would be virtually a full-time skill course. It seems that co-ordination between the Departments of Industry, Employment and Health and Social Security is critically necessary if the Government are to look at this in a national and not just a regional context. I am delighted to see a Minister from the Department of Health and Social Security standing behind the Chair. I hope that he heard my last remarks.
I wish to make a plea for all-party support for the central provision of the Finniston report. If an engineering authority were established, it would provide a focal point for action on the whole quality of manufactured output in this country. It would be able to keep an eye on education from the schools through to further and higher education to ensure that it was geared to the needs of industry in this technological age. It would be able to ensure that business men and companies were able to play their part in the use of engineers and in the training and development of engineering skills. It would, above all, be a catalyst for the future, so that not just the Northern region but the entire country would at long last be able to match the manufacturing skills and products which our rivals abroad are able to offer.

Mr. Ron Lewis: This short debate has been initiated by the Opposition, who have devoted half a Supply day to it. That is a shocking indictment


of the Government, especially since throughout the debate only two Conservative Members from the Northern region have attended.

Dr. Hampson: Three.

Mr. Lewis: What about the Chief Whip, the Home Secretary and the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr.Rippon)? They all represent seats in the Northern region. I give credit to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Sir W. Elliott), who is consistent in his attendance at debates on the Northern region. Five minutes after having entered the Chamber at 5.45, a part-time member of this House sought to interrupt one of my hon. Friends—

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: rose—

Mr. Lewis: I thought that the hon. Lady would rise to the bait.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Lewis: No.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Lewis) is not giving way, the hon. Lady should not persist. This is a short debate, and I hope that hon. Members will not engage in this kind of argument.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Lewis) is doing me a disservice. I was discussing these precise problems with the Department of Industry, and that is why I was late.

Mr. Lewis: The debate is taking place on the Floor of the House, not at the Department of Industry. If the hon. Lady was so keen to attend the debate—she is a part-time Member—she should have been here when we started at 3.30.

Mr. Dormand: The hon. Lady does not represent the Northern region.

Mr. Lewis: I hear my hon. Friend say that, but I am not sure. I believe that she is the representative for Cumbria at the European Assembly.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is a short debate, and there are three other hon. Members waiting to take part.

Mr. Lewis: I think it right to have those facts on record because not only some of my constituents but constituents of others of my hon. Friends who may not have a chance to speak will be wondering why poaching from other regions should have taken place during a debate on the North.
I shall concentrate briefly on my own part of the country. There is always a tendency for people to think that, although we are in the North-West of England, we are not really anywhere. In fact, we are in the Northern region, which is more than the hon. Member for Ripon (Dr. Hampson) can say. We have our problems, just as other parts of the region have theirs, and, of course, one of the serious problems facing us in the far North-West, in company with others, is unemployment.
In my part of the country—the same has been true in other parts of the region—a number of redundancies have been announced in textiles, and I understand that further redundancies in other industries are likely to be in the pipeline. Thus, under this Government, I foresee the Northern region experiencing a sharp decline in employment during the days ahead.
At one time British Rail was the largest employer in my constituency. Now, the largest employer is the Ministry of Defence, through the Royal Air Force. Under the Labour Government, the top brass in the Royal Air Force in Carlisle and other parts recommended to my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John), then the Minister responsible, that part of the Royal Air Force No. 14 Maintenance Unit should be transferred to Harrogate. After meeting a deputation, my hon. Friend rightly turned that down. Rumour has it that the top brass are now suggesting to the present Government that what was turned down by a Labour Government should go ahead under the Tories, namely, the transfer of part of No. 14 MU RAF Carlisle to Harrogate. I hope that we can have an assurance to pass on to those in my constituency who work at No. 14 MU Carlisle that that move will not take place.
During the election campaign Conservative candidates in the Northern region were keen to assure the electors that, in the event of a Tory victory, the


quality of services generally would be maintained. Now, about 10 months later, instead of their quality being maintained, the state of our services is quite otherwise There are extensive cuts in the health budget for the Northern region, and in my part of the country we have had to bow to the Government's squeeze, with the result that services are being axed here and there.
Massive cuts in the Health Service seem now to be the order of the day, and prescription charges have risen by about 350 per cent. under this Government, a Government who gave an undertaking about 10 months ago that services generally would be maintained.
I had a letter from a constituent today—I shall not quote it because of the time—deploring what has been happening under this Tory Government. I promised to be brief, and I shall be, so I close with a reference to one specific matter which is worrying us in Cumbria, namely, the provision of education services and, in particular, transport for education in Cumbria and in Carlisle.
My guess is that a number of jobs will be lost in the teaching profession and as a result the standard of education may not be maintained. The Cumberland county council, which is Tory-controlled, imposed secrecy and would not allow the press into its meetings, but we know that it followed the pattern set by the Tory Government, and it has considerably slashed the provision of transport for various schools in my constituency.
The right hon. Lady the Prime Minister was responsible for cutting free milk for schoolchildren, and now school transport is being savagely raped by the Cumberland county council, more or less acting on the instructions of the Tory Government. This is causing great public concern in Carlisle and elsewhere in the Northern region, which will mean 20p per day for people in Carlisle.
I am grateful to the House for its tolerance in hearing me for a few minutes. I end by assuring the Government that whenever the next election comes, be it general election, local government election or even European Assembly, the electors of Cumbria will remember what is happening now.

Mr. Gordon A. T. Bagier: As a Member for Sunderland,

an area experiencing very difficult unemployment—in fact, it is one of the serious pockets of unemployment in the Northern region—I welcome the opportunity to speak for a few minutes, and I assure my hon. Friends that they will be but a few minutes. This debate has arisen because of the realisation in the Northern region that we can look forward to nothing from the present Government. Since they were elected last May, we have seen move after move that has done nothing but harm to our region.
I welcome the presence of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Sir W. Elliott), who always speaks for the region, but I could not help feeling that he had his tongue in his cheek when he said that Labour had failed. If he had said that Labour did not solve the unemployment problem in the Northern region, I could agree with him to some extent, but if he asserts that the Tory Government are doing something to put matters right, I can only assure him, notwithstanding the way in which he always speaks for the region, that he must have his blinkers firmly on.

Sir William Elliott: rose—

Mr. Bagier: I cannot give way because there is no time, but I shall be happy to discuss these matters later if the hon. Gentleman wishes.
The hon. Gentleman tells us that his Government have been doing something. Indeed, they have. There has been a massive application of medicine throughout the country. The indictment of the Government is that they have not sought to protect or cushion against the impact of those measures the regions that are already badly hurt. The medicine applied over the whole country has been administered to every region, no matter what its circumstances, and it is in this context that we must emphasise to the Government the enormous harm that is being done.
For example, what good has it done to the region to cut £25 million from the youth opportunities programme? What good has it done to the region to cut £42 million from the special temporary employment programme? What good has it done to reduce the amount to be made available for education grants? What purpose has been achieved by slashing youth services?
The high minimum lending rate and high interest charges are preventing those engaged in a smaller way of business from expanding and providing necessary jobs. Local government cutbacks are being introduced despite impending unemployment. That will have an effect throughout the country, including the more prosperous regions. However, it is noticeable that the shire regions have been cushioned from most of the blows that I have mentioned.
The Government's IDC policy, their high rates of interest and the high level of VAT cannot be said to be cushioning the regions from the medicine that has been applied throughout the country. I am talking of specific measures that are increasing unemployment in the Northern region. When the local government cuts take place, my local authority colleagues will have my deepest sympathy. The sensible Labour-controlled councils will be faced with the difficulty of applying the tough medicine that the Government wish to implement. Local authorities know that that will create even more unemployment.
A constituency problem has been brought to my notice in a letter that I received from the chief executive of the area that I represent. The subject matter is the housing investment programme. I hope that I am not reading anything sinister into the letter, but I understand from the chief executive that the housing investment programme for 1980–81 has not yet been agreed by the Secretary of State for the Environment. What has happened to young Tarzan? Why is the right hon. Gentleman so shy about coming forward with the figures?
Sunderland's authority is having to agree tenders for about £5½ million worth of work for 1980–81 in the absence of an indication of the sum that will be made available by central Government. We also have the embarrassment of a programme that is designed to provide necessary improvements for council houses. It will not be possible to go ahead with that programme because it is not known from where the money will come. Last year, agreement on the figures was reached on 29 November. Why is the Secretary of State so shy this year?

Mr. Derek Foster: It is vital for the Government to appreciate the rising tide of anger, if not despair, in the Northern region. It has long had the highest unemployment level in Britain and more than its fair share of the 300,000 and more long-term unemployed. The Government expect unemployment to increase still further by at least 300,000. The Northern region can expect to suffer disproportionately. That is the prospect at a time when 12 people are chasing every vacancy in the region. However, the Government want to penalise those people by taxing or reducing benefits. The Government argue that that will strengthen the incentive to work. Do they not realise that the reduction in regional income must multiply further job losses, more redundancy payments and even more claimants?
In the North there is a great willingness and eagerness to work. What the region lacks is jobs. Northern working people have always been deeply sceptical about central Government. They believe that there is little knowledge of, understanding of, or sympathy for their stuggles either in Westminster or Whitehall. It may be that the communication gap between upper-middle-class Oxbridge values and working-class values underlies our relative industrial decline.
Many northerners would welcome more control over their own affairs. However, they recognise that further massive central Government support is necessary for at least another 15 years if the region is to achieve self-sustaining growth. We in the North are anxious to work in a constructive partnership with any Government who have an ambitious regional development policy. When unemployment is increasing, when industrial development has become—nationally and internationally—much more competitive, and when central London, the Midlands and every inner city area have entered the job-hunting arena, the North has been greatly disadvantaged by the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Development Agencies. The problems in the North are as severe and long-standing as those faced by Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. We must have a development agency. Without it the judgment of northern people will remain that this is the most harsh


and inhumane regime of the century and that its overthrow cannot come too quickly.

Mr. Ted Leadbitter: For some decades we have been debating the same problem. During the many years that I have been in public life, I cannot recall one new argument that has been presented in the debate. We must address ourselves with some pertinence to the general attitudes that impinge upon the vexing issue of the Northern region and its economic prospects.
We are living in a time in which economics have gone mad. For example, a ship arrived in Hartlepool flying the West German flag and carrying East European steel that had been subsidised by a Communist State. That ship had a Common Market licence. The steel workers of Hartlepool are being put out of work, but during the present steel strike we have learnt that two ports on the North-East Coast import 25 per cent. of the United Kingdom's domestic requirement. That is economics gone mad.
On the other hand, we build large steel complexes, albeit on the basis that with basic oxygen systems unit costs of production will be better. We listen to clever people explaining how that will be achieved. However, we learn that our domestic demand is about half of our capacity. It is inevitable that our unit costs will increase. That is economics gone mad.
In recent times we have had the most reactionary Government this century, with the most reactionary Prime Minister. The Government and the Prime Minister are supported by the Ayatollah of Leeds, North-East, the Secretary of State for Industry. The right hon. Gentleman pleads for a non-intervention policy. He did so only the other day. However, intervention is affecting those in the Northern region. Gas prices are forced up although that is not required by the gas industry. Price control is abolished and prices are allowed to rise. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is not short of a penny or two himself and can afford to pay increased charges for gas and higher prices generally, increases the rate of value added tax to 15 per cent. Therefore, regions such as the Northern region

are immediately affected. Hardship is imposed upon the regions.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: Has my hon. Friend noticed that at 6.28 pm the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) has only just walked into the Chamber?

Mr. Neville Trotter: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have been attending an extremely important constituency luncheon engagement. I came to London on the first available plane thereafter.

Mr. Leadbitter: My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Bagier) mentioned that the youth opportunities programme and the special temporary employment programme have suffered greatly from the Government's cuts. However, when we go through a political exercise—that is all that it is, and it happened when the previous Labour Government were in office—of pleading for work and investment in the regions, an appeal is made to the Common Market and we have, for example, the Davignon formula for steel, which I have described on previous occasions. We pay the EEC £1,000 million net. We give large grants, amounting to millions of pounds, to some parts of the Third world which do not trade with us in a reciprocal manner. We forget the simple philosophy that, in some cases, charity ought to begin at home.
In my region there are cuts in hospital services, thousands of nurses unable to find work, thousands of teachers out of work in our schools, fewer books, less transport and less food—or, if not less food, higher charges in order that children cannot buy that food. The whole social and economic infrastructure is placed at risk.
The Government have brought to a head the crucial problems facing the country and it is time that they spoke with some sense. I hope that when the Minister replies he will not give us any more claptrap, because we have had enough from the Ayatollah, the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), and from the abbrasive lady, the Prime Minister.

Mr. Ted Fletcher: I refer to a constituency matter that has repercussions in the North-East. As a consequence of the public service cuts, it has


been proposed that certain skillcentres should be closed, and 20 are currently under review. One of them is in my constituency of Darlington, and another is likely to be Maryport. In addition, one of the three rehabilitation centres in the North-East at Killingworth, Felling and Billingham is scheduled for closure. I understand that at Billingham the trainees, who are disabled, have been asked whether it would be possible for them to travel 30 miles every day to Felling to continue their instruction.
There are seven skillcentres in the North-East. Darlington has a tremendous record of placing as many as 80 per cent. of the trainees in employment after initial training. Twenty-three of the trainees are sponsored by British Rail and prominent firms in the North-East to the extent of£65 per year. As a consequence, the Government are receiving some income. It is inexplicable why the Government have decided to put Darlington on the list when it is an area that attracts from southern Durham many trainees who are vital and necessary to small firms, especially those moving into the district.
The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Sir W. Elliott) mentioned that his heart bled for the youngsters leaving school with no training facilities available. There was hardly a dry eye on this side of the House. Why does not the hon. Gentleman approach his Government and

ask them why they intend to cut the staff of the Manpower Services Commission by 3,400, cut the training staff of skillcentres by 520, and cut the staff of rehabilitation centres by another 100 in the next three years?
Yet the Government speak plausibly about the needs of the North-East. They say "If only we had more skilled men in the North-East, small industries would flock to the North-East." They are deliberately economising at the expense of our employment prospects. When the Minister replies, I hope that he will never mention that we need more skilled men in the North-East as the Government are doing everything that they can to frustrate our efforts to recruit skilled people.
The best contribution that could be made by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North, if he is so concerned and sincere in his desire to see the youngsters that he described to us so vividly receive training, would be to go to his Government and say "I am not prepared to vote for these cuts in the skillcentres. I intend to fight to keep them open."
I hope that my few remarks will induce the Government to think again, especially about Darlington. They will receive letters from the local authority and employers' organisations urging them to reconsider their decision. I hope that my small contribution will lead in that direction and that the skillcentre will remain open.

Dr. John Cunningham: The burden of the argument in the debate from these Benches has been about intervention in the economy and the responsibility of any Government to take that course—intervention in the industrial scene and in the public sector. Nowhere is that sort of approach to economic and social difficulties more necessary than in the Northern region. The narrowness of the traditional industrial base—coal, steel, shipbuilding and heavy engineering—is, even now, under further attack because of the Government's cash limits policies. That applies especially in steel but has repercussions in coal—perhaps the coalfields of Durham—and shipbuilding on Tyneside, Wearside and Teesside. Our heavy engineering industries associated with shipbuilding would be placed in jeopardy.
Industrial intervention is called for. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) so vividly illustrated, public expenditure through the local authorities is crucially important in the Northern region. That is a complementary factor, especially in view of the narrowness of the industrial base. I hope that when the Minister replies he will meet that point head on. There is no argument that he could advance or sustain that would lead anyone on this side of the House to believe that these problems would be resolved by the market forces about which the Government are keen to speak.
I agree with the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Sir W. Elliott) that regional policies have not solved the problems of the Northern region. That is clear and we accept it. However, they have been making a positive and necessary contribution. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree with me.
Given the difficulties of the British, economy—they are not all the responsibility of the Government, and we need not waste time saying that they are—and of the world recession, surely it is the worst possible time to diminish regional support to an area such as the Northern region. If the Minister says that market forces will resolve the problems, we say that they are a bit slow oft the mark. Market forces have been with us for even

longer than regional policy. Therefore, his argument is even more true in the case of the market forces approach to the economy. They have caused many of the deep-seated and structural problems with which the Northern region has much difficulty.
The Minister may tell us that the Government cannot find the money, but the people of the Northern region will recall that the Government found £1·6 billion in tax cuts in the last Budget for the benefit of the top 6 per cent. of high income earners in the United Kingdom. Set beside that amount, the support that we are suggesting for the Northern region should be made available when considering the problems that exist, especially for youngsters. In my constituency, youngsters with O-levels and A-levels are hopelessly under-employed—working in garages serving petrol. That is absolutely disastrous for the long-term future of our industries. It is under-utilisation of the tremendous talents to be found in our youngsters. Even worse, some youngsters cannot find any sort of job.
Whatever else this Government may be able to say—they cannot say much so far—their actions have further disadvantaged the region, whether we talk about local government expenditure, public sector expenditure or the small firms about which we have heard so much. Crisis-level interest rates and 15 per cent. VAT are absolutely inimical to the interests of small firms. Far from helping the economic climate, they have further damaged opportunity.
I hope that the Minister will not make any criticism of trade unions for preventing change in the region. Far from preventing Change, in the coalfields, in the shipyards and in industry as a whole—in my constituency, iron ore mining and coal mining have disappeared, to be replaced by the nuclear industry—trade unions have welcomed change and sought to bring it about, but they will not welcome it when, as at present, no alternative employment opportunities exist.
We seek some answers and some commitment. We seek particularly a response to the case for a Northern development agency. Although it will not solve the problems, it will help to make a significant contribution to dealing with them.

The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. David Mitchell): It is good for the House to turn its attention in some depth to the problems of a specific part of the country. Like other hon. Members, I congratulate the hon. Member for Thornaby (Mr. Wrigglesworth) on the way in which he opened the debate.
The debate has been generally constructive, with perhaps a certain amount of politicking about the numbers of Members returned for the Labour Party in the Northern region. They may indeed be 81 per cent. of the Members, but they received only 50 per cent. of the votes. That should not be overlooked.
There is a certain irony in my first appearance as a Minister in a debate about the Northern region, because my father, like many others in the shipbuilding industry, was twice unemployed in the 1920s and migrated south. The right hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Mr. Armstrong) referred to the situation which existed then, thereby underlining the length of time that this has been the case.
I share the concern expressed by many hon. Members about the high and sustained level of unemployment in certain parts of the region. Figures are easy to give, but they do not record the personal anguish of those out of work. There is still a loss of self-respect, a failure to achieve expectations, family hopes and plans dashed, perhaps never to be fulfilled. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, West (Mr. Brown) spoke eloquently about that.
Two aspects of unemployment stand out in my mind. The first is the serious increases of the last five years, the second is the chronic and deep-seated nature of the underlying problems.
Unemployment in the Northern region doubled between 1974 and 1979. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Sir W. Elliott) pointed out that this was not the product of a new Conservative Government. In fact, unemployment in the region went up under the previous Government from 4·2 to 8·5 per cent. It is certainly not something that we caused: it is very deep-seated.
The right hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Urwin) said that the region

had been top of the unemployment league for far too long. That is true. Regrettably, under all Governments, going back to the 1930s and the 1920s, in spite of all that has been done with agreement on both sides of the House, the same structural problems in the same areas still confront this region.
Like all other hon. Members, we on this side care deeply about unemployment and the problems of the unemployed. I therefore want to turn now to our assisted area policy. The situation that we inherited in this respect was that the aid was spread too thinly and too widely to be effective. We found that 40 per cent. of the country had assisted area status and, what was more important, that under the criteria applied then there was no way in which we could resist the applications of Birmingham, Wolver Hampton and the whole of the West Midlands for the same status.
If we had continued that policy, we would have been well on the road to giving assisted area status to over 50 per cent. of the country and to a point at which everybody would be taking money from everybody's pockets in order to put it back into everybody's pockets.
We have sought to concentrate assistance on the areas of greatest need. We have reduced the application of assisted area status to 25 per cent. of the country. That is a substantial change and it means that those which remain assisted areas stand out and become relatively much more attractive.
Even after the changes, 81·5 per cent. of the population in the Northern region will be in a special development area or a development area. That is the highest proportion anywhere in England. As we have rolled back the rest of the map and made the Northern region stand out, so it should benefit relatively more from this policy than it did before.
We have also sought to single out the special development areas, those which have had the most deep-seated structural problems, by retaining the 22 per cent. rate, and we have widened the differential for special development areas from 2 to 7 per cent. Thus, any industry which is considering whether to move will find the SDAs much more attractive now. We believe that that will make a substantial difference.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: The Minister refers to the need to put the emphasis on the areas of greatest need. Surely, the unemployment figures in ratio to the number of job vacancies are the real criterion which should determine where the aid goes. In one town in my constituency 45 people are chasing one job, yet under the Government's proposals the SDA status of that area is being downgraded to development area status. Surely, that is defeating the whole object of the policy.

Mr. Mitchell: Had the hon. Member intervened earlier, I would have dealt in depth with the reasoning applied in the case of his constituency. I do not have all the constituency figures at my fingertips at this moment, but if there is any aspect of the matter which we may not have taken fully into account, I am prepared to look at it carefully.
We have sought to apply a criterion right across the country. There has been no political favouritism. No one can point to a marginal seat which has been favoured. Some of my hon. Friends in North Devon and parts of Wales will no doubt complain furiously, but we have sought a criterion based on the conditions in the 1972 Act and applied it absolutely fairly. By concentrating on the SDAs in this way, we see to give them relatively more help.
Perhaps it will be of some assurance to hon. Members who have raised this matter to know that if there are changes in the relative unemployment in any particular travel-to-work area, subject to the decisions that we have taken, we are prepared to look at those areas again if hon. Members will raise them with me.
The hon. Members for Thornaby and for White haven (Dr. Cunningham) asked me to announce a wholesale reversal of our assisted area policy. For the reasons that I have just sketched out, it would be wrong to go back to the well-meaning but failed policies that we have sought to sweep away.
The hon. Member for Consett (Mr. Watkins) raised the question of the steelworks closure in his constituency. He said that he forecast at the general election that a Conservative Government would close the steelworks at Consett. The closure decision is a matter for the BSC board. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman

has recognised a distasteful but essential logic inherent in the commissioning of new plant. He stressed the need for improved communications and for more factory building, and he indicated that local resources were unable to cope on their own.
I accept and recognise the need for diversification. An 80-acre site is now available, and two factories totalling 33,000 sq. ft. are in the process of being built. I join the hon. Gentleman in his deep sense of concern for his constituency and for the problems which face the town of Consett. He and representatives of the local authority are to visit me. I shall listen to what they say and consider constructively what can be done.

Mr. David Watkins: I appreciate the remarks of the Under-Secretary of State. Is he seriously suggesting that the British Steel Corporation in its programme of closures is acting outside the lines laid down by the Government?

Mr. Mitchell: The BSC is following the inevitable logic of having recently commissioned new low-cost plant.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North, the right hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring, the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon)and the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) raised the matter of the siting of the first Inmos production plant. That decision was made by Inmos. The burden of the Inmos board's arguments is that the first plant is a high-risk, advanced technology plant and, in the opinion of the management, it needs to be close to and closely integrated with the technology centre in Bristol. I understand that the North-East, South Wales and assisted areas in the South-West were considered. Inmos stated publicly that the second production plant would be in an assisted area. The right hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring sought an assurance on that.

Mr. Radice: rose—

Mr. Mitchell: Ministers are aware of the concern of right hon. and hon. Members, and they will study carefully the points made today.
I accept the points made by the hon. Member for South Shields about the attractiveness of the North-East Coast and of Cumbria and have pointed out that that is not a valid argument for the


decision. I have given the reasons, and I undertake that the points made today will be brought to the attention of Ministers.
I turn to the question of a northern development agency, which was raised by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster). I recognise the desire of the Labour Party to set up a northern development agency. However, the previous Labour Government throughout their life had the opportunity to do something about it but they did nothing until the eve of the election and then raised the matter as an election cry in their manifesto. If they believed so deeply about it, why did they not do something? My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State received a deputation last December. He listened carefully to what was said and is now considering the arguments.
The right hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring was deeply concerned about BSC's extensive imports of coking coal. He called it a callous failure of the Government to intervene to direct British Steel to buy British coking coal, even if if is more expensive. I ask the House to follow through the consequences of that. If we have higher-cost coking coal, we have higher-cost steel. If we have higher-cost steel, there will be fewer sales. If there are fewer sales, there will be fewer jobs in the steel industry. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman was seeking that. If the consumers of British steel—in the engineering industries—are forced to buy more expensive British steel, the level of unemployment will be raised in the engineering industries because they will not be able to sell more expensive products. It is with regret that we must recognise an economic reality.
The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) asked about the location of the Sterling Winthrop research laboratory project. It will be located in Alnwick in his constituency and is being supported by section 7 assistance. After completion, in about two or three years' time, it will provide employment for 130 people.
The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West raised the case of a 714certificate. I hope that he will write to me about that matter, because I should like to consider it.

The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Radice) raised the matter of the review of skillcentres. No decision has been taken, and the matter will be dealt with in an Adjournment debate this evening by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Employment.
The hon. Member for Jarrow raised the question of IDCs, which he described as shortening the stick with which to beat firms to move to the North-East. The problem is that many of the firms which were initially refused IDCs do not then move to a development area. They melt away. Some go abroad and then come back to Britain. Others find some other way. Sometimes it does not happen.
The hon. Gentleman said something of profound importance when he stated that if the national economy catches an economic chill, the North-East gets pneumonia. That is right. Nothing helps the region more than a virile national economy. That is why the Government have been making changes in their overall economic policy, for which the cuts in regional policy and financial savings are all part of the overall package designed to bring about a more virile national economy.
In the medical world there is a trend towards prevention, not cure. Equally, in the economic field we must move to the prevention of unemployment in the future by the starting up of more businesses now. That is the main need of the North-East and of so much of the country. There should be more firms. That cannot be done by importing firms. Firms cannot be bought. There is much less mobile industry in Britain now than in the past. Throughout recent years the amount of mobile industry has been steadily falling. We must see far more home-grown industry. I pay tribute to the many hon. Members who have drawn attention to the importance of small businesses. They are the seedcorn from which jobs will develop.

Mr. David Watkins: What about a reduction in the interest rates?

Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman calls for a reduction in the interest rates. If the Labour Government had not left us with a legacy of rip-roaring inflation, we would be able to do that. It ill becomes the hon. Gentleman to refer to the legacy


left by the Labour Government and to attack our methods of dealing with it.
The country needs many more businesses. The North-East has fewer entrepreneurs than other parts of the country. We must encourage them. I pay tribute to what Enterprise North and Durham university have done to try to bring that about. The North-East is paying the penalty of nineteenth century success. We should ask ourselves how and why that success was built. It was built on a climate which rewarded enterprise. It was built on a business climate where business was not burdened by constant Government intervention, regulation and control. The re-creation of that climate is an essential part of the Government's policies. We are seeking to create a cult of success, incentives for people to start businesses and a new climate for success in the future.

Mr. John MacGregor (Lords Commissioner of the Treasury): I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

WEST MIDLANDS COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [28 June], That the Bill, as amended, he now considered.

Question again proposed, That the Bill, as amended, be now considered.

Question put and agreed to.

New Clause 14

NOTICE OF STREET PROCESSIONS (No. 2)

(1)


(a) No person shall organise or conduct a procession through any street in a district unless there has been served on the chief officer of police at any police station in the district through which the procession is intended to pass, a notice stating the route by which and the date and time on and at which it is intended that it should pass 
(b) Notice under paragraph (a) above shall be served at a time not less than 72 hours before the procession starts to pass through any street or as soon as reasonably practicable after that time.
(2) If any procession passes through any street in a district by a route or at a time which has not been stated in a notice relating to that procession delivered in accordance with subsection (1) above, except in accordance with directions given by the chief officer of police under section 3 of the Public Order

Act 1936 or other directions given by the senior police officer, if any, attending the procession, any person organising or conducting the procession shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £200.M
(3) Nothing in this section shall apply to a procession:

a) commonly or customarily held; or
(b) organised or conducted for the purpose of a funeral by a person acting in the normal course of his business where his business is that of a funeral director.
(4) For the furtherance of co-operation between the organisers of processions and the police, the Chief Constable shall issue a code of practice giving guidance to the organisers of processions on any matters which he deems to be relevant, and in particular drawing attention to:

(a ) the desirability of notifying the police as early as possible when a procession is planned and publicised; and
(b) the need to make arrangements for stewarding and to agree the route with the police.


(5) Proceedings shall not be instituted for any offence under this section unless the proceedings are instituted by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.—[Mrs. Knight.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

7 pm

Mrs. Jill Knight: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The measure, which is a very important one for the West Midlands area, has been much delayed in its passage to the statute book because it foundered on the question of street processions. The promoters of the Bill, with recent recollections of some very stormy and difficult periods in the city of Birmingham following street processions that got out of hand, were most anxious to protect uninvolved citizens and tradesmen from getting caught up in such street processions and demonstrations. The promoters were perfectly properly bent on safeguarding the right of ordinary people to walk or drive around the West Midlands without let or fear.
Other hon. Members in this House, equally properly and with great sincerity, were anxious to ensure that any restrictions that might be imposed by the Bill did not in any way curtail freedom of speech or freedom to demonstrate, which are, after all, among our basic freedoms.
The clause is the result of a great deal of work behind the scenes, and I pay tribute to the spirit that has motivated hon.


Members who had concern about the former clause. I believe that the new clause meets all the concerns that have been expressed and that it will be acceptable to hon. Members on both sides of the House.
We believe that by laying down clear guidelines about what is to happen when street processions are planned, the police will be enabled to protect the people. At the same time, within the ambit of the clause we feel that there is protection for those who wish to express their feelings in a demonstration.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: I appreciate that there has been a considerable amount of endeavour behind the drafting of the new clause, with the aim of preventing any feeling that there could be interference with civil liberties. Although it appears to be reasonable on the face of it—and is no doubt fairly reasonable—there must still surely be cases sometimes when an explosive position suddenly builds up in a factory or in a workplace, when local trade union officials may feel the necessity to lead the work force in that factory or workplace.
I will give an illustration of what I have in mind. The Minister of State probably knows well the little market town of Alston. Suppose that, without any of the normal consultation that ought to take place, the management suddenly announces the closure of a foundry. In a small market town of that sort, where about 120 jobs are involved, that would involve relatively massive unemployment. I have in mind the sort of case where, without consultation, a firm decides to make a sudden announcement about closure. Such an announcement would cause instant anger not only within the plant but within the town, so that people would demand an immediate demonstration against the closure.
If an explosive position of that sort were to create a walk-out of the work force, and a parade through the small town were organised, it would surely be completely unreasonable to have a prosecution, albeit that the demonstration would be in contravention of the law. I ask the Minister of State to consider that illustration.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: As I understand the new clause,

provided that someone at the start of the demonstration has telephoned the police, he has given all the notice that is required.

Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, but I feel that we ought to have on record from the Minister precisely what would happen in the circumstances that I have outlined. The regional secretary of a trade union might decide, because of the circumstances, to telephone the chief constable, expressing his regret that, although 72 hours' notice ought to be given, he could only give 12, 15, 18 or 24 hours' notice. I suggest that it would be completely unreasonable in such circumstances to have a prosecution.

Mrs. Knight: Perhaps I may direct the hon. Gentleman's attention to the last subsection of the clause. I take his point that proceedings ought not to be instituted in cases of this kind. He will see that the wording is that
Proceedings shall not be instituted for any offence under this section unless the proceedings are instituted by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
I believe that that is a sufficient safeguard. The other hon. Members who signed the motion felt that the wording might alleviate the sort of concern that the hon. Gentleman expressed.

Mr. Brown: It might allay the fears of Conservative Members and the fears of some of my hon. Friends, but it does not entirely allay mine. We ought to be clear that within the context of the Bill there is no possibility—I put it no higher than that—of the civil rights of individuals and groups of individuals being put at risk. Clearly, we ought to avoid any question of interference with civil rights.
Several other measures of this type have come before the House. As far as I am aware at present, the Trades Union Congress is not happy with this proposition, which it regards as a possible infringement of people's civil rights. I put it no higher than that.

Mr. A. J. Beith: The measure has been around for a long time, and the background to the clause dealing with notice of street processions is the reason for that.
The original clause was debated in the House on 6 February 1979, and the


original clause about street processions was removed from the Bill on an instruction that I moved. That clause required seven days' notice to be given. In the course of the debate, the promoters of the Bill offered to reduce it to three days' notice. Many difficulties were referred to in the debate, from political demonstrations to funerals, from one extreme to the other. The delay in the progress of the Bill since then has been due to the attempts which have been made to overcome those difficulties.
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) and the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett), who have devoted a great deal of time to the discussions and who have achieved something worth while in the new clause that the hon. Lady has put before us tonight. It is not perfect but it is a reasonable outcome. It reduces the period of notice and it also makes clear provision for spontaneous demonstrations—demonstrations at very short notice—which have concerned many of us. It does so by indicating that in such cases the notice can be given
as soon as reasonably practicable after that time.
I think that that is a considerable improvement. I am very glad that the promoters have agreed to make that part of the new clause.
We have to view the clause against the background of existing provisions in some boroughs in the West Midlands.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: The hon. Gentleman has hit on the point. He is suggesting that the spontaneous demonstration would be covered by subsection (1)(b), but it would not be covered, because the notice must be given, under subsection (1)(b),
as soon as reasonably practicable after that time.
I suggest that there would be no time for a notice. A spontaneous demonstration would have happened before the chief constable could be informed.

Mr. Beith: It is clear from the discussion so far that in the case of an organised demonstration in immediate reaction to a piece of news or an event, it would be possible for whoever was organising it simply to make a telephone call to the police to say "This is what we propose to do. The procession is moving off very

shortly", and to give that degree of information to the authorities. That would be a helpful thing to do. Indeed, most trade unionists and most organisers of spontaneous demonstrations do precisely that and would want to do it.
It has been our contention throughout these proceedings that much of what was in the original clause is unnecessary, because responsible law-abiding citizens who want to organise demonstrations in pursuit of the democratic process will give maximum notice anyway. It is only those who have no desire to fall within normal democratic procedures who give rise to the problems that led people to bring forward this clause in the first place. Those who have no time for our democratic procedures and civil rights, those who wish to abuse the opportunities afforded to them, will not abide by the clause any more than they abide by existing law. Not only will the responsible citizen want to abide by these provisions; it will be a great deal easier for him to do so than it would have been under the original proposals.
I would rather that even this degree of control was unnecessary and that we did not feel it necessary to have it in a Bill of this kind. When I was interrupted, I was saying that we must view it against the context of at least some boroughs in which there are existing provisions about notice of street processions. Against that background, this is not a bad compromise. Although this does not represent the civil rights of a perfect world, it is a reasonable outcome to the long negotiations and much preferable to what was in the Bill when it was first brought before us.

Mr. Iain Mills: My contribution will be very short.
I was fortunate to be chosen to serve on the Committee which considered the Merseyside County Council Bill, when we examined many of these points in considerable detail. Two of them are perhaps relevant to the discussion tonight.
At is has been reworded, the clause certainly seems to offer both sides, if "sides" be the relevant term, the best of both words. One has to remember that civil rights also apply to ordinary citizens going about their daily jobs and that one also has to plan into the whole of the processional factors the county


council's provision of police cover. Certainly in fairly explosive events, it is only right that ordinary working people, such as policemen and policewomen, should be able to contemplate what time they will have at home and what time they will be required to work.
Therefore, in this case, it seems to me that the clause has provided answers which both allow those who intend to process to do so and yet give a reasonable amount of notice to the authorities and some protection to the ordinary citizen.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, West (Mr. Brown) that one must have some misgivings about the clause. It is particularly fortunate that at least the Tyne and Wear county council has agreed not to put in its Bill such a clause. I think that that would have been the ideal position concerning this Bill. However, since the promoters were so keen to have something in it, a compromise had to be reached. I suggest that most of my hon. Friend's fears are met in this compromise.
First, notice has to be given at a police station. That makes it as easy as possible for notice to be served. Then there is the phrase in subsection (1)(b):
or as soon as reasonably practicable after that time.
I think that that was intended to allow the spontaneous demonstration to which my hon. Friend referred. I hope that in practice it allows that.
We have to take into account the existing situation in the West Midlands. Some of the local authorities there that have now been merged into the West Midlands county council, or are in its area, already have a requirement for a certain amount of notice to be given. That situation does not exist in many other areas. Therefore, taking all those circumstances into account, this appears to be a workable compromise.
7.15 pm
We ought to stress subsection (4), in which we are suggesting that there ought to be a code of practice, because this is an area in which a leaflet offering guidance to those who would like to organise demonstrations could be very useful indeed. What we want to be

aiming for is voluntary co-operation so that both sides are satisfied that the general public and the police are not unreasonably put out and yet the demonstrators or protestors have the maximum opportunity to voice their views.
I stress that there has been some evidence that the West Midlands has, in a way, been used as a guinea pig for the jumbo Bills—as some have referred to these big local authority Bills—and that other local authorities have simply tried to follow behind the West Midlands. This compromise clause was specially designed to take into account the arguments put forward by the representatives of the West Midlands. I would not want anyone to think that they ought to be following this in other parts of the country, because if others want to try to follow this I think that they ought to wait for national legislation. If they want to deal with it by individual Bills, they must accept that different circumstances apply in different parts of the country and that there ought to be very different Bills for different parts of the country.
The best example has been set by West Yorkshire, Tyne and Wear, and South Yorkshire, which have not bothered to put a clause of this sort into a Bill. However, I suggest, very gently, that if others come forward assuming that they can accept this compromise, they may run into the same sort of difficulties as have occurred with this Bill.
Therefore, I hope that the House will accept the clause fairly speedily tonight and that it will work out as a workable compromise between the two arguments that have been put forward.

Mr. George Park: I had the task initially of attempting to pilot a Bill similar to this one through the House. It came to grief mainly on the clause relating to street processions. Some hon. Members who are now in the Government have had the same experience. In the interim, as has been mentioned, hon. Members on both sides of the House have endeavoured to arrive at something which would be workable and seen to be reasonable. I think that this new clause achieves that aim.
It should not be forgotten that the need for those Bills came about through the formation of metropolitan councils.


Because of the differing practices within the district councils which came under their umbrella, it was essential—and it still is essential—for the metropolitan county councils to try to get some commonality in practice within the regions for which they were responsible.
I can appreciate the misgivings of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West(Mr. Brown) about the clause. However, I should tell him that in Coventry we have had provision for a much more extensive notice. For many years we have had this provision relating to street processions. It has never been necessary to invoke it, because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) has said, it was only necessary to pick up the telephone to let the police know that a procession would be taking place. We were able to manage on that basis.
In the circumstances outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, West, I think that his trade union experience will tell him that there is hardly likely to be such spontaneity that there is an immediate upheaval and an immediate procession and no time at all to get to a telephone. I am sure that experience will show him that, if it is felt that there should be a procession, it can be taken almost for granted that there will be a meeting at which the procession will be agreed. It will then take a certain time to form the procession, and in the intervening period it is reasonable for someone to make a telephone call.
In a small market town, surely the police will be even closer to the people than in a great metropolis like Birmingham, good though the police in Birmingham are, and will appreciate much more quickly the reason for the spontaneity and, therefore, take that into account.
The new clause uses the words
as soon as reasonably practicable after that time.
Even if it went beyond that point and the DPP was involved, I believe that the circumstances are reasonably although not totally covered and that the clause can be accepted.

Mr. John G. Blackburn: In the local authority in which I serve as a councillor, I had the opportunity to go through the Bill and I also had the opportunity to see it debated at

local authority level in the constituency that I represent.
First, I should like the name of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) to be associated with the excellent work done by the hon. Members for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) and for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett). It was a joint effort and, to be frank, I hope that it will be seen as a good and acceptable compromise on both sides of the House.
I am particularly pleased that, within the confines of the clause, the possibility of the police being given sufficient notice is a safeguard on all sides. From experience, I imagine that a good time to hold a procession that would gain public sympathy and support is on a Saturday afternoon when there are people in the market place, the Bull Ring and the various avenues of trade in the West Midlands. If there was a telephone call at 2.30 pm to say that a procession would take place at 3 pm this coming Saturday, with all the football matches and, therefore, commitments of the police, there would be problems, first, to safeguard the procession and, secondly, to safeguard the
public.
The clause is an excellent compromise. In the long term, the code of practice is the key to good relations between those who make the protest or wish to hold a procession and the police authorities, and in that spirit I warmly welcome the clause.

Mr. J. W. Rooker: We have had seven speeches in 23 minutes, and I intend to maintain par for the course.
The new clause is an acceptable compromise. I do not intend to have any fudging of the issue. My qualification is that I am satisfied with it for the West Midlands. I support my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) and agree that there would be no point in another local authority with different rules trying to transplant the proposal in that precise form into its Bill. We must look at each Bill on its merits.
I do not wish to introduce any acrimony, but in the previous debate the hon. Member for Warwick and Learning-ton (Mr. Smith) advocated that farmers in Leamington and Warwick should break


the law, but tonight he has found time to be absent from the House.
I do not intend any criticism of the hon. Member for Dudley, West (Mr. Blackburn), who was a member of the local authority that dealt with the Bill, but I have a message for our colleagues in local government. Those who serve on local authorities at county, district or regional level do not have the machinery, time or expertise to protect the civil rights of our citizens. Otherwise, the House would not have had to have four separate sittings on the Bill with regard to this central issue and to reach this compromise.
The Bill was considered by all the councils in the West Midlands without the issue being raised by any councillor, Labour, Conservative or Liberal, and none of the trade unions picked it up. It would have fallen completely through the safety net of the system had it not been for my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North. I say to my colleagues in local government "Do not believe what chief officers or others tell you. Do not take what they say at face value. They are servants and not masters."
In this case the county council officers have shown a degree of arrogance that surprises even me. Their belligerence and arrogance have caused the delay and have caused many of us to read the Bill and table 60 amendments, most of which have been withdrawn. In the process we found other matters that are unacceptable, and, once the clause has had a Second Reading, we should like to see a few other minor changes.
I repeat my message to councillors: "Do not believe the clerks and bureaucrats in local government. This time we can prove that they sold you the pass and did not do their job correctly".

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Leon Brittan): It is not appropriate for me to give or not give messages to local authorities, least of all in the West Midlands. I join hon. Members on both sides of the House in congratulating those involved in producing the new clause, which has rightly been described as a compromise. I looked long and hard at the Amendment Paper to see whether it was right that the three signatories had joined together to put their names to the

new clause, and when I read it I could see how that could come about.
During the previous discussion in the House of the proposed inclusion of a notice of street processions provision, I indicated the Government's view that there was a clear case in favour of such a requirement in the West Midlands. I am therefore genuinely glad to see that, during the intervening period, it has been possible for my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) to reach agreement on the form of such a provision with those who previously opposed it.
The case for a requirement of advanced notice in the West Midlands is no less strong than before, although no hon. Member in the House tonight would wish to take time in rehearsing the arguments. I welcome the new clause and urge hon. Members to support it.
It raises such questions as that considered by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, West (Mr. Brown). The provision that notice should be given 72 hours before the start of the procession or as soon as is reasonably practicable is a new formulation to deal with the problem of a procession which people want to start but which they have not made up their minds to start when it would have been possible to give the full 72 hours' notice that would otherwise be provided by the clause.
As the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Park) pointed out, the circumstances in which a truly spontaneous procession would arise are not, perhaps, quite as widespread as one might at first think. It is necessary to organise a procession and usually necessary to agree that it should take place. Therefore, I think that it will be possible in all cases to give some notice. The question will then be whether notice has been given
as soon as reasonably practicable".
Under the Bill as it will stand if the new clause is approved, the determination of whether notice has been reasonable would not arise unless the DPP chose to bring a prosecution. That would be a brake on any imprudent prosecution.
7.30 pm
When a prosecution was brought, a court would have to decide whether, in all the circumstances, notice had been given as soon as was reasonably practicable. No doubt the court would take


into account when the decision to hold the procession was made, what was to be the nature of the procession and how soon after the decision was taken it was proposed to implement it. In the light of those circumstances, magistrates would consider whether notice had been given as soon as was reasonably practicable.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: I am reassured by the way in which the Minister is responding, but I should like to put a hypothetical point to him. Let us suppose that a plant meeting takes place during a lunch break and it is decided that half an hour after lunch a demonstration will be held. A works convener is a busy man anyway and in those circumstances would be even busier making last-minute arrangements. Let us suppose that he overlooked the need to telephone the police station. Would he be taken to court? I hope not, because we do not want to make any more martyrs. Can the Minister give us an assurance on that point?

Mr. Brittan: It will be up to the DPP to consider whether it is in the public interest to bring a prosecution. If there is no trouble on a procession and it is clear that the failure to give notice has been the result of genuine inadvertence rather than a deliberate act, the DPP may consider that it would not be desirable to bring a prosecution. However, I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that if no notice had been given an offence would have been committed.
I do not think that it is unreasonable that someone who thinks it appropriate to advise his colleagues and organise a procession in the streets should give a high priority to notifying the police so that the appropriate arrangements can be made to ensure that the procession is conducted with the minimum disturbance.
The balance is not unreasonable, though I cannot pretend that the new clause is wholly free from difficulty. Of course, it cannot be. It is in the nature of a compromise that there must be a balance, and I believe that the difficulties can be reasonably comprehended within the new clause. Of course, there would be scope for argument in a particular case about whether notice was reasonably practicable.
The idea of a code of practice is excellent, and I can see why it has been included in the new clause. Whether in

the context of such legislation it is best or necessary to include a requirement for a code, or whether it would be sufficient merely to promulgate it, is a matter on which there is room for two views. Nevertheless, I understand that the chief constable of the West Midlands is content with the provision, and I do not wish to press any doubts about the wisdom of including it in the new clause.
Several hon. Members have raised the question of the relationship of the new clause to other local Bills that may seek to deal with this matter. There are grounds for debating the provisions of the new clause, and even in its present form it may not be regarded as suitable by every local authority that wishes to have a notice of procession provision in local legislation.
However, I believe that it is desirable that some measure of uniformity should be achieved wherever the inclusion of such requirements in local legislation is felt to be necessary. No doubt local authorities will wish to look at the new clause when considering how they wish to formulate any proposals that they intend to put before the House.

Mr. George Cunningham: rose—

Mr. Brittan: May I anticipate the point that the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) may be wishing to make in the intervention at which he is hinting and make clear that the question whether there should be a national provision of notice of processions is obviously one of the most important points being considered by the Government in their general review of public order legislation?
I wish to make clear that the inclusion of such provisions in the Bill before us and my indication of the Government's support for them must not be regarded as prejudging the outcome of that review. We are still in the middle of it and wish to consider the matter further.

Mr. George Cunningham: I am most grateful for the Minister's remarks, which are relevant to some of the objections that some of us expressed on previous occasions.
Will the Government bear in mind in their review that the only way in which we can have proper consistency on this


matter in England and Wales is to have the subject covered not in private legislation but in public general legislation and that, on the whole, people feel that on such a matter, touching civil liberties, there should not be a different position existing in Birmingham from that in London, Sheffield or anywhere else?

Mr. Brittan: There is no doubt that if the matter is to be dealt with as a result of the review of public order legislation, and if there were to be fresh legislation, the operation of that legislation would have to be nationwide.
As to the doubts about the desirability of individual local provision at the moment, we are not starting with tabula rasa—with no such legislation and with local authorities coming forward with ideas. Most of the proposals involve, at least in some parts, the local authorities concerned taking over or adapting existing provisions. That is a relevant consideration.
With those thoughts, I wish to join in the congratulations to those who have been able to bring about the compromise which I commend to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Clause 1

CITATION AND COMMENCEMENT

Amendment made: No. 55, in page 2, line 41, leave out '1st October 1979' and insert:
'the expiration of three months after the passing of this Act'.—[Mrs. Knight'.]

Clause 3

APPOINTED DAY

Amendment made: No. 56, in page 4, line 25, leave out '1st October 1979' and insert:
'three months after the passing of this Act'.—[Mrs. Knight.]

Clause 6

GRASS VERGES, ETC.

Amendments made: No. 57, in page 7, line 21, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'Minister of Transport'.

No. 58, in page 7, line 23, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'Minister of Transport'.—[Mrs. Knight.]

Clause 10

BUILDINGS UNDER HIGHWAYS

Amendments made: No. 59, in page 11, line 32, leave out 'and'.

No. 60, in page 11, leave out line 33 and insert:
'(e) after subsection (5) there were inserted'.

No. 61, in page 11, line 34, leave out '(6)' and insert '(5A)'.

No. 62, in page 11, line 37, at end insert:
'and'
(f) subsection (6) were omitted.'

No. 63, in page 11, line 40, at end insert:
'(3) Section 154 of the Highways Act 1959 (openings to cellars or vaults under footways) shall have effect in the county as if, in substitution for the definition of "appropriate authority" in that section provided by section 153(6), there were inserted at the end of section 154— 
 "(6A) In this section 'appropriate authority' means, in relation to any street, which is a highway, the highway authority for the street, and, in relation to any other street, the local authority in whose area the street is situated.".'— [Mrs. Knight.]

Clause 13

PROVISION OF SHOPS, ETC., IN SUBWAYS

Amendment No. 23 proposed, in page line 44, at end insert:
'(2A) A district council shall ensure that there are adequate advertisements in its subways for family planning and venereal disease clinics.'—[Mr. Rooker.]

Mrs. Knight: I should like to ask the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) to reconsider his amendment. The matter is more involved than might appear at first sight.
I am not against advertisements for family planning and venereal disease clinics. My difficulty is that I consider the amendment a rather minor matter to be dealt with by the imposition of a statutory requirement. I do not know whether the House is aware of the fact, which I am sure the hon. Member


for Perry Barr has taken into consideration, that advertising space on panels in subways is contracted out on periodic agreements to advertisement contractors. The revenue which the local authorities receive from them is of great assistance to them.
I should have thought that it was possibly undesirable to impose an obligation in respect of one type of advertisement in this way, because there are other concerns about which the public are very usefully informed. I have in mind such matters as marriage guidance and the existence of such bodies as the Samaritans. It could be very difficult if the advertisement contractors had to take on the responsibility for letting advertising space in the subways if there were to be only advertisements for family planning and places of treatment for venereal disease.
For many years there have been advertisements for venereal disease clinics in public lavatories, and it may be that those are good places for them to be. In those locations they cost no money.

Mr. Park: Although the hon. Lady is correct in saying that these panels are dealt with by advertising contractors, surely it is simple for the local authority to reserve one panel in each subway for its own use and to display the various advertisements in rotation so that people may be informed.

Mrs. Knight: But that is not what the amendment says. It singles out two very special types of advertisements, and I cannot help thinking that it would fetter contractors if such a restrictive provision came into being and they had to keep certain panels clear of advertising. What is more, I do not know who would pay for these advertisements to be displayed. For example, a family planning clinic run by a private charity might not be able to afford to put up such an advertisement. In such a case, would the space be left blank?
I ask the hon. Member for Perry Barr to think carefully before pressing his amendment. It highlights difficulties of which the House should be made aware.

Mr. John Sever: The difficulty in which the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) finds herself is one in which

to some extent we all find difficulty. It is that the subjects under discussion are not all that popular. It is difficult to promote public advertising of available services to the wider community. I know from the work in which I have been involved in Birmingham as a local magistrate that from time to time it is felt that young people who may have missed out on some degree of education about the disease clinics especially are not aware that they exist and find themselves in difficulty because of the personal nature of the affliction. The advice which they seek is not readily available, and they do not know where to start looking for it.
These panels have come to be recognised as being always around in the same places. They are extremely valuable. They are of considerable assistance to young people, and they should be encouraged. That is why they have been provided for in the amendment.
The limitations on the expression of the information is a matter which should concern us all. As the hon. Member for Edgbaston said, in the past advice about where help from clinics could be obtained was displayed in public conveniences. However, in different parts of the city many of these places are being demolished in the course of redevelopment schemes and are not being replaced, though I accept that that does not apply in the city centre. I think that we need to have recognised places where advertisements of this kind may be found. A lot of young people in Birmingham and in other towns in the West Midlands have come to realise that that advice is available on these kinds of display boards in subways and other locations.

Mr. Nick Budgen: I do not think that this proposal has the far-reaching effects that those who have put their names to the amendment believe it to have.
The word "adequate" is capable of very wide definition. It is not capable of any very objective definition. I suspect that "adequate" will be interpreted as meaning adequate within the circumstances of each local authority's area. "Adequate" no doubt will be referable not only to the physical area in which the advertisements may be but also to the number of persons who may be thought at any time to need that information.
Although this provision might be thought to give rise to large advertisements which would be offensive and irritating to many people, I do not think that that is so. It gives a very wide discretion to local authorities, and therefore in all probability it will receive the acquiescence of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House.

Mr. William Wilson: The worst thing that ever happened to Coventry was when it was put into the area of the West Midlands county council. When I listen to the expressions of paternal or maternal instinct telling us in Coventry what we should put in our subways by way of advertisement, my gorge rises.
Most of the subways in Coventry have no advertising matter at all. That is how the position should remain. Unfortunately, however, in our subways graffiti tell us "Aston Villa for ever", "Join the Labour Party Young Socialists" and so on. I tremble to think what will happen to advertisements which are put up in the manner that the amendment proposes.
I hope that district councils which feel the need for this type of advertising will be allowed to please themselves. To the mandarins of the West Midlands county council, I say "Coventry will make up its own mind. It does not need you to tell it what advertising to display in its subways."

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I can understand the citizens of Coventry wishing to make up their own minds, but, looking through the Bill, this seemed to be the sort of amendment which was a reasonable request.
I agree with the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) that in putting in the word "adequate" we were not applying pressure. We were simply saying that this was basic information which should be available to people and that a local authority should spend a little time thinking about how to put out that information.
In areas where large numbers of subways have been developed, they seem to be reasonable places for making that

information available. Although some of this information has been available in the past in public conveniences, in my view it would be more appropriately put into advertisements displayed in places such as subways, although I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Wilson) that it is important that these subways have authorised advertisements and are not defaced by a large number of scrawlings.
For those reasons, I hope that the promoters will accept this modest amendment.

Mr. Rooker: Having moved the amendment, I do not know whether I need leave to speak again. I had expected that the amendment would be accepted without debate.
I reiterate what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. Sever). These happen to be unpopular subjects. One of the reasons for the existence of the House of Commons is that sometimes it is necessary to raise unpopular subjects. In this area we thought that the House of Commons should make the necessary provision. I point out to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Wilson) that it is the House of Commons—it is not the county council—which is saying to district councils in the West Midlands "We would like you to think about this and to display advertisements which are adequate to the needs of your area."
This House is not putting an onerous task on those district councils. The fact that family planning advertisements cannot be placed on buses is ludicrous. We maintain that the public should have more information available in these areas. There are allegedly unpopular areas. If this opportunity is not taken, we shall be failing in our duty.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 14

USE OF PART OF WOOD GREEN CEMETERY FOR HIGHWAY PURPOSES

Amendment made: No. 1, in page 15, line 30, after 'Sandwell', insert 'Borough'.—[Mrs. Knight.]

Clause 18

POWER TO ORDER ALTERATION OF CHIMNEYS

Amendments made: No. 65, in page 17, line 32, after 'council', insert or any person aggrieved'.—[Mr. Rooker.]

No. 27, in page 17, leave out line 38.

No. 28, in page 17, line 39, leave out '(b)'.

No. 29, in page 17, line 39, leave out other'.—[Mrs. Knight.]

Clause 21

POWERS OF ENTRY FOR PREVENTION OF DAMAGE BY PESTS ACT 1949

Amendments made: No. 41, in page 19, line 21, leave out 'or that refusal is apprehended'.

No. 43, in page 20, line 3, at end insert:

'or for the period of one month whichever shall be the less'.

No. 44, in page 20, line 3, at end add:

'(1D) Any subsequent application for a warrant relating to premises for which a warrant has previously been issued shall contain a sworn account of the steps taken in the exercise of the previous warrant or warrants and the outcome thereof.'—[Mr. Rooker.]

Clause 45

ACCESS FOR FIRE BRIGADE

Amendments made: No. 4, in page 41, line 36, leave out 'any'.— [Mrs. Knight.]

Clause 67

INSURANCE OF CERTAIN VOLUNTARY ASSISTANTS

Amendment made: No. 5, in page 57, leave out lines 5 to 8 and insert::
' "authorised insurers" means a person who is permitted under the Insurance Companies Act 1974 or the corresponding provision for the time being in force in Northern Ireland to carry on in Great Britain or in Northern Ireland insurance business of a relevant class or who has corresponding permission under the law of another member state;'—[Mrs. Knight.]

Clause 73

DISPOSAL OF LOST AND UNCOLLECTED PROPERTY

Amendments made: No. 48, in page 59, line 4, leave out 'three' and insert 'six'.

No. 49, in page 59, line 16, leave out 'three' and insert 'six'.—[Mr. Rooker.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Since the remaining amendments are promoters' amendments or consequential amendments, or have already been discussed, it may be for the convenience of the House if I put them together.

Clause 97

CONTROL OF GOODS SERVICE AREAS

Amendment made: No. 6, in page 73, leave out from 'Council' in line 6 to the end of line 8 and insert:

,as if references to consultations with any local authority were omitted and as if for references to obtaining the consent of the owner or occupier of the land in question there were substituted a requirement that—

(a) a copy of a notice of proposals be served on any such owner or occupier other than the Coventry City Council before publication and
(b) before considering any objection made by any such owner or occupier the City Council shall afford to him an opportunity of being heard by a committee of the City Council'.—[Mrs. Knight.]

Clause 112

SUSPENSION OF PROCEEDINGS PENDING APPEAL

Amendments made: No. 7, in page 78, line 39, leave out 'or business' and insert 'business or practice'.

No. 8, in page 79, line 9, leave out 'or business' and insert 'business or practice.'—[Mrs. Knight.]

Clause 115

DEFENCE OF DUE DILIGENCE

Amendment made: No. 11, in page 79, line 42, at end insert:
'Section (Notice of street processions (No. 2)).—[Mrs. Knight.]

Clause 116

APPLICATION OF GENERAL PROVISIONS OF ACT OF 1936

Amendment made: No. 12, in page 80, leave out line 36 and insert:
'Part VII (Storage of flammable material)'.—[Mrs. Knight.]

Schedule 1

SECTION 153 OF THE ACT OF 1959 AS HAVING EFFECT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 10 OF THIS ACT

Amendment made: No. 64, in page 86, line 30, leave out '(6)' and insert '(5A)'.—[Mrs. Knight.]

Schedule 5

ENACTMENTS REPEALED

Amendment made: No. 13, in page 102, line 21, column 3, leave out '111' and insert 'to'.—[Mrs. Knight.]

Bill to be read the Third time.

BEES BILL

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered; read the Third time and passed.

VALUE ADDED TAX

Resolved,

That the Value Added Tax (Fuel and Power) (Metrication) Order 1979 (S.I., 1979, No. 1646), a copy of which was laid before this House on 11 December, be approved.—[Mr. Peter Rees.]

DONCASTER SKILLCENTRE

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr.MacGregor.]

Mr. Roy Mason: As my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) is just entering the Chamber, perhaps I may delay proceedings for a second until he gains his breath and can raise the matter that he wishes to raise on the Adjournment.

Mr. Harold Walker: I am deeply grateful to my right hon. Friend

the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason). If I may indeed try to get my breath, I should like to say that I am deeply grateful for the opportunity to raise a matter of great concern not only to my consituency but to local authorities, industry and commerce in South Yorkshire, Humberside and places beyond.
It is crazy that with almost 1½ million people unemployed, key sectors of our economy are losing output because of a shortage of skilled manpower. People must be trained in a spirit of optimism, secure in the knowledge that they are gaining the right skills and being educated to participation in the changes, not to be overwhelmed by them".
Those are not my words, although I wholly endorse them. They were spoken by the present Secretary of State for Employment on 16 March 1979. A few weeks later he publicly declared that a key point in the Conservative Party's approach was
to retrain those people whose skills are no longer needed".
On 20 April, speaking to the electors, the good folk of Radcliffe, in Lancashire, he said:
We shall encourage the retraining of those whose skills are no longer required".
In the same speech he also said:
We have no intention of cutting off job subsidies".
But five weeks after taking office he chopped £170 million from the special employment measures.
I shall not weary the House with further such quotations or take up my own valuable time by so doing, except to say that as recently as September last the Secretary of State was still sticking to the same theme, saying:
The key to the labour market will be a willingness to be flexible and adaptable through working life.
I do not quarrel at all with the policy reflected by such views. Indeed, I have often expressed similar views myself. But, in the light of what he has said, it seems incredible and inexplicable that the Secretary of State now should be making a massive cut in retraining provision and butchering the skillcentre network.
In 1977–78, nearly 100,000 people completed courses under the training opportunities scheme. This year, it is down to something over 70,000—and it is to be cut to 60,000. That information was contained in a written reply from the Under-Secretary of State for Employment, who


is to reply to the debate, in Hansard on 16 June 1979.
At present, we have 69 skillcentres and 30 annexes. It is proposed to cut these by 20 per cent. One-fifth will go to meet cuts imposed by this Government. That is a dramatic about-face—a U-turn—from the policies to which the Secretary of State, on the strength of the quotations that I have given, has repeatedly paid lip service.
One of the centres on the Government's hit list is the Doncaster skillcentre, which I had the pleasure of opening only two years ago this month. If all the economic, industrial and social factors, as recently as January 1978, led the Manpower Services Commission to believe that it was right to open the centre, what changes, we are entitled to ask, have occurred since then to justify a reversal of policy?
Can it be that the need for training and retraining in the area has diminished? The unemployment rate in the Doncaster travel-to-work area continues to be far in excess of the national average and not far short of the average of the development areas. The travel-to-work area immediately to the west, Mexborough—I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Dearne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) hopes to join us before the end of the debate—has an unemployment rate in excess of the average of the development areas, while to the east Scunthorpe is threatened with the loss of 5,000 jobs in the steel industry. Should not our unemployed have the chance to retrain?
Is it that the Doncaster centre is under-used? I understand—based on figures given to me in the locality—that the occupancy rate over the past six months is more than 77 per cent., compared with a national average for Great Britain last November of 75 per cent. I understand from the same source that the occupancy rate for Yorkshire and Humberside centres aggregated at the same date was only 71 per cent. When I visited the centre less than two weeks ago, I was informed that the occupancy was not 77 per cent. but nearly 100 per cent. Of 106 places at the centre, 92 are currently taken up.
I know that the Minister will quote, from the figures that he kindly supplied in response to a question, an occupancy rate of 66 per cent. over the past five

months. Here we have an extraordinary discrepancy between the figures supplied by the Government from their head office, those supplied from the region and those that I ascertained from visiting the centre. That of itself should make the Government wonder, if they are basing their judgment on statistics, whether they should not look again at their statistical criteria. Whatever the figure given by officials to the Under-Secretary, I believe that the figure that I have just given—the 92 places out of 106 that are occupied, the nearly 100 per cent.—is the real current figure.
Is the threat of closure justified by a low placement rate? I understand from the regional sources that for the past six months the placement figure of those who completed training and sought employment was 74 per cent., compared with an average for the whole country of 78 per cent. But even at 74 per cent. the placement rate is well above the averages for Scotland, Wales and the Northern region. It is very much higher than the placement rate of TOPS trainees from colleges of further education almost everywhere.
Again, the fact disclosed by my recent visit is that the current placement rate is almost 100 per cent.—not the 74 per cent. or the 68 per cent. that I am sure the hon. Gentleman will quote to me. It is almost 100 per cent. That is the truth of the matter, as seen not from headquarters in London but from where the action is at local level.
Surely these figures, even if we take the worst of those to which I have referred, far from excusing a closure threat, confirm the success of the centre and give every justification not merely for its retention but for its expansion. That is particularly so since it has had such a short period in which to build up and to recruit instructors. I understand that that was one factor that inhibited development at the earlier stages.
The Doncaster centre is modern, with modern equipment, providing training in just those skills that are in short supply, not only in South Yorkshire but nationally—engineering trades, fitting, machining, building and construction trades, carpentry, joinery, bricklaying, electrical trades, electrical maintenance and installation, vehicle repair and maintenance—in addition to the more specialised


training sought by local employers under sponsored training schemes. The sponsored training schemes have been outstandingly successful at Doncaster.
Furthermore, the courses have received the full support and co-operation of the local trade unions. As an illustration, I quote from the resolution passed by the district committee of the engineering section of the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers in Doncaster in denunciation of the proposed closure:
In an area that does not provide the necessary skills or trained labour, the closure would undoubtedly create a greater problem in meeting the future requirements for trained labour".
That resolution, incidentally, should help to nail the lie so sedulously peddled by some Conservative Members over the years that the trade unions in general, and the AUEW in particular, are opposed to skillcentre training. Or do they suggest that somehow things are different in and peculiar to Doncaster? If so, they are providing yet one more argument for lifting the axe from our local centre.
Of course, opposition to the closure goes beyond the trade unions and the local Members of Parliament. Industry and commerce have expressed alarm. The metropolitan borough council has condemned the threat. Only the other day I received a letter from Barnsley metropolitan borough—I am very glad to see with us my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley and other Members representing constituencies in that area—saying that the council would regard the closure of the Doncaster skillcentre as a serious blow to the economic development of the borough.
I hope that the Minister will not seek refuge by suggesting that the matter is one for the Manpower Services Commission. Certainly, when the commission was established it was intended that it would be responsible, within the framework of its budget, for determining labour market policy and formulating priorities and initiatives. But under this Government things have apparently changed. It is now the Government who are deciding, and the commission is being asked to endorse what the Government have decided. It is a complete reversal of roles, with the Marks and Spencer man, Sir Derek Rayner, who may be expert in selling knickers but who probably knows little

about manufacturing industry, dictating events. That is a kind of development that is wholly contrary to the spirit and intention of the 1973 Act.
Equally, I hope that the Minister will not inflict upon us the line that I have heard elsewhere, that the cut in skillcentre provision is between only 3 per cent. and 5 per cent. For Doncaster it is not between 3 per cent and 5 per cent., or the 20 per cent. that I quoted earlier; the closure will mean a cut of 100 per cent.
I see that there are present other hon. Members with similar interests, particularly those from South Yorkshire, including my hon. Friends the Members for Don Valley (Mr. Welsh) and Goole (Dr. Marshall), who may want to elaborate and support what I have said. Therefore, I conclude by telling the Minister that if he relies on any case that is built on the argument about the difficulty in placing trainees in areas of high unemployment, if he repeats the currently fashionable claptrap "Why spend money on training people if you cannot subsequently guarantee them jobs?", he will not only be confirming the Government's inability to understand and manage the labour market but will be declaring the Government's cynical abandonment of many of the unemployed and their remaining hope of returning to a job.

Mr. Roy Mason: I am very pleased that my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) has been fortunate enough to secure this Adjournment debate on the problem of the closure of skillcentres, particularly the Doncaster skillcentre.
I understand that newspaper reports indicate that the Manpower Services Commission plans to close 20 of its skillcentres to meet cuts imposed by the Government. I hope that the Minister will deny that. There could be no more shortsighted policy. If we are to have economic growth and industrial development, we must end the bottleneck in skilled personnel. It would be to have cuts of lunatic savagery to close 20 skillcentres.
The skillcentre that concerns me tonight is the one at Doncaster. Its closure would have a serious impact on Barnsley, because several local firms, as well as the National Coal Board, have benefited from


the sponsored training at the centre, where existing employees are given specialised training in all the new techniques.
Moreover, a total of 41 unemployed Barnsley residents have applied to the Doncaster centre for retraining. That is the centre's other main function. The closure of the Doncaster centre would have an adverse effect on Barnsley in general and in particular on an area which is working hard to bring in new jobs and where the new industrial estates are now beginning to take off. The Doncaster centre has been open for just over two years, and I understand that it can now offer a wide range of courses and recruit even more Barnsley residents for training.
My local council, in its submission on the South Yorkshire structure plan, argued that the training needs of Barnsley borough wet e so crucial to the council's attempts to diversity industry that a skillcentre should be established at Barnsley. Therefore, the Doncaster closure would worsen an already inadequate training facility.
I speak for the officers and members of the council when I say that we would regard the closure of the Doncaster skillcentre as a serious blow to the economic development of Barnsley borough. I urge the Minister to heed the strong representations that have been made to him to ensure that the Doncaster skillcentre does not close.

Mr. Michael Welsh: I totally support the comments that have been made by right hon. Friends the Members for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) and for Barnsley (Mr. Mason).
South Yorkshire has lived for too long with the problem of unemployment. The threat of unemployment hangs like a sword over the heads of our men, women and young people. At particular risk are those who have had no training, those whose training is out of date or those who are trained for an industry that is in decline.
It is a paradox that mounting unemployment in the Doncaster area is to be found alongside a crippling shortage of skilled workers. The skillcentre exists to help to correct these problems. The facts about the Doncaster centre clearly show a success story. The Doncaster area is not directly affected by the steel

industry, but we are neighbours of the Sheffield, Rotherham and Scunthorpe areas, all of which will be gravely affected. Surely the steel workers need to be retrained efficiently and quickly if they are to avoid the horrors of long-term unemployment, which destroys morale and incentive and is a drain on public funds.
This is a time when the Government should be tooling up to help with these problems. At best, the threat of closure of the skillcentre is sapping morale and enthusiasm. We are used to the hard facts of industrial life in the Doncaster area and we have a capacity to fight back and make the best of adversity. We live with danger and adversity in our mining industry. I came from the mining industry as late as May last year. We can do without adversities being introduced in consequence of penny-pinching, shortsighted Government policies.
A further important fact is that the skillcentre caters for training and retraining direct with industry. An employer will pay as much as £65 per week for each employee who is sent on certain schemes. Over 350 employees have been paid for in that way by organisations such as the National Coal Board, British Waterways, Hotpoint Ltd., Airfix, Mining Supplies, Ransomes, S. R. Gent, Albert Martin, Briden Wire and Rockware Glass, to name but a few. These workers have improved their skills, and in some instances have gained new skills by being sent to and paid for attending the centre.
This is a growing undertaking of which we are very proud. For four years before coming to the House I was the chairman of the industrial development committee, and the skillcentre is a fine achievement for which Doncaster can proudly fly the flag. We are very proud of it. I ask the Minister to ensure that this growth at the Doncaster skillcentre be allowed to continue.

Dr. Edmund Marshall: I am grateful for this opportunity to support my right hon. Friends the Members for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) and for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) and my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Welsh) in their opposition to any suggestion that the Doncaster skillcentre facility be either removed or reduced in any way.
Although the skillcentre lies just within the boundary of the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, it is in fact less than two miles from my constituency boundary and many of the staff and trainees are and have been my constituents. I was fortunate enough to pay a visit to the skillcentre as recently as 9 November. I was greatly impressed by the new facilities that have been provided. New courses are available at the Doncaster skillcentre which are not available at all skillcentres. I am particularly mindful of the courses in bricklaying, which I found particularly fascinating.
The newness of the skillcentre makes one wonder how the present rumours, and reported rumours, about the proposed closure have come about. It seems silly that such a good facility, provided in the past two years, should now be threatened with extinction. Many people in the locality pressed long and hard for the opening of this skillcenre. I have a copy of a letter dated 1 August 1971, just two months after I came to the House, which I wrote to the then Secretary of State for Employment asking and pressing for the provision of a Government industrial training centre in the Doncaster area. Over many years there was tremendous pressure, and it was a great success when the decision to build the Doncaster skillcentre was taken. I have no doubt that it was due in large measure to the efforts of my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster.
The facility, which was greatly needed in the area, has now been given the chance to get off the ground. However, it would appear that there are some forces at work that want to try to give it a stillbirth.
The area of my constituency which is closest to Doncaster and is most closely served by the skillcentre is the former Thorne rural district. Unemployment in that district has persisted at a level much higher than the national average for two decades. The latest unemployment figure which I have for Thorne is for December 1979 and is 1,503, comprising 1,015 men and 488 women. It is not easy to express that as a percentage rate of unemployment because, in the statistics, the Thorne area is taken with the rest of the Doncaster area as one travel-to-work area. The

percentage is worked out over that travel-to-work area as a whole.
In order to estimate the unemployment rate at Thorne, one must examine the most recent census figures, which give the number of economically active persons resident in the Thorne district. That census was taken in 1971, nearly nine years ago. At that time 16,835 economically active persons were resident in the Thorne area. Of those, there were 11,500 men and 5,335 women. On the basis of those figures, male unemployment in Thorne last month was 8·9 per cent. and female unemployment 9·1 per cent. That area is, indeed, an unemployment black spot. It is not possible to give more accurate figures because the normal monthly unemployment figure is expressed for the whole of the Doncaster area.
I hope that I have said sufficient to indicate that the possibilities of providing more jobs for my constituents at Thorne must be seized and exploited to the full. If local residents are to be able to use job opportunities to the full, they need facilities for retraining. The National Coal Board is helping in the area with its decision to recommence coal production at Thorne colliery in the next few years. That will make a profound difference to the area because of the new job opportunities that will arise as a consequence of that decision, both in the colliery and in attendant industries nearby. If the unemployed are to be able to use those new opportunities to the full, they must have at local level and within easy distance the facility to learn new skills by retraining.
Hon. Members have also mentioned the impact of those who are made redundant in the steel industry at Scunthorpe not far away. Some of my constituents travel each day to work in the steel industry in Scunthorpe. There is no other skillcentre in the whole of the South Humberside area from Doncaster to Grimsby. Those who have pressed for a skillcentre in South Humberside were told that the reason for one not being provided was that a skillcentre was planned—and is now provided—in Doncaster. At a time when the steel industry in Scunthorpe is obliged to reduce its manpower, it is silly that the South Humberside area should be denied a retraining centre, even at Doncaster.
I hope that the opposition to the rumoured closure of the Doncaster skillcentre is sufficient to stop any further moves in that direction. I give my wholehearted support to all that has been said to defend this wonderful facility for the people of my area.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: Whenever the Tory Party is in power, it restricts the training of working-class people. Even though unemployment in my area is at such a high rate, the Government are determined to reduce the training facilities provided by the Labour Government. I do not know how they can appear before the nation and say that they will cut the means to produce skilled workers.
We are short of skilled workers throughout the country. Every manager and every trade union official knows it. Everyone knows it, except the Tory Government. I am surprised that they intended to take away a skillcentre. The Dearne Valley area is much affected by that decision because it has high unemployment. The only hope for young and middle-aged men is being betrayed by the Tory Government, the economic situation and the advance of technology. The last Tory Government also cut down the training facilities created by Labour because, they said, they were costing too much. How can we create the skilled workers we need unless we provide the resources necessary to give people the opportunity to train?
The Minister knows from his experience and from the way in which he has progressed the validity of what I am saying. He may smile now, but he knows that we cannot have a strong and progressive society unless we provide training facilities for young people. They do not cost that much. It is shattering to think that the Tory Government, who believe, so I am informed, in the advanced technology and microelectronics which will enable us to compete with our foreign rivals, should consider cutting down training. They know that we cannot compete unless we educate our young people and give them the chance to train. By their cuts, the Government are preventing working-class people from increasing their knowledge in a way that is necessary to enable this country to meet its future needs.
We are losing out in textiles. We import practically all our textile machinery because we have not progressed If one wants to buy textile machinery, one has invariably to buy it abroad. When the Labour Party has been in power, it has tried to move forward in this direction, but the Conservatives have destroyed their efforts. Where do the Conservatives get their money from? They get it from investments abroad, by buying goods abroad at a price cheaper than they can be made here and selling them on the home market here knowing that they will restrict the demand for home-produced goods. If we examined in detail where the Conservatives had their money invested, we would discover that people in the Tory Party will buy and sell where-ever they can provided they can make a profit and regardless of what happens to the country. At the same time, they are cutting back in vital areas. I am not talking about every Conservative supporter, only a few important ones.
Let us consider microelectronics, in which area lies the future of mankind. We have seen what happened in the computer industry. If everything had been left to the Tory Party, we should have been sunk. It was Frank Cousins who set things forward. Without him, we should not have had a computer industry.
The new technology of microelectronics is based on the computer, but the Tory Government have done everything in their power to destroy our British microelectronics technology. That is the way the Tories behave. They do not worry so long as they make money. Wherever their investments are, they do not care two hoots about anything else.
The Tories think that if we educate our working class the trade union movement will be strengthened. Of course, that is right. This has to be realised in the trade union movement, too. Unless we have a well-educated working-class movement, we cannot take over industries that we want to take over. But what matters is running industry for the nation's benefit, and we cannot do that unless we have highly skilled workers to do it.
When I look at the history of the Tory Party—and sometimes when I look at the history of my own party and of the trade union movement—I am disgusted. People do not seem to realise, and the Tories in particular do not realise, that


we have to compete abroad, producing goods as cheap as or cheaper than those produced by our competitors while maintaining a high standard of quality. What is more, it is no use producing anything at all unless we can sell it. We need people trained on the commercial side, too, to sell goods.
Yet this Government are destroying just about the only skillcentre we have in Yorkshire. The Tory Government are to be criticised for all sorts of things—even my own Government deserved some criticism, for that matter—but unless we base a highly skilled body of working people making certain that we can compete and doing the worthwhile jobs which are needed, we cannot win the battle in the highly competitive world of today.
On the Tory Benches there is often a great deal of shadow talk about Britain and things British. On my side, too, there is sometimes a lack of understanding and acceptance of what that means. But if we want to move towards the best kind of democratic society, we must have skills. Everyone should be skilled. We must all be prepared to cope with the future developments in science and technology.
For goodness sake, let the Government not stop this skillcentre. It is only a small part of a larger scheme, but it is a very important part. I warn them that if they decide to stop it we shall fight them tooth and nail to make sure that they realise what we are fighting for.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I am glad to be called in this debate. I have spent the day in the Chamber, and I rise now to do what I can to protect a constituency interest, in this case the skillcentre at Maryport in the heart of my constituency.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Order. I am sorry to have to tell the hon. Gentleman that he cannot do that. The Adjournment debate is about the closure of the Doncaster skillcentre and no other.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Perhaps, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I could relate the problems which I have in mind to those which similarly affect Doncaster. I must assume that one of Doncaster's problems is a high level of unemployment, just

as it is in my area, and perhaps I may assume that the development area status of Doncaster has been lost as a result of the policy announced by the Secretary of State for Industry. Much of the country will be changed as a result of the right hon. Gentleman's statement. My constituency has lost its special development area status. It now has development area status. A number of other actions have been taken by the Government that affect not only Doncaster but my area.
The role of the National Enterprise Board has been severely reduced. The dispersal programme, which would have brought a Government laboratory to my constituency, has been disturbed. I assume that that has also affected Doncaster. Although the constituency of Doncaster does not subscribe to the North of England Development Council, I feel sure that there may be problems. In my constituency the county authority has withdrawn support for that vital industrial promotional organisation.
Many of the services provided by the Department of Industry in Doncaster will be affected as they have been in my constituency. The small firms' advisory services that are run by the Department are to be withdrawn. The Manpower Services Commission's budget, which covers skillcentres in Doncaster and in my constituency, will be halved as a result of recent statements by the Secretary of State for Employment.
I assume that the raising of minimum lending rate has had a fairly marked effect on the development of industry, both small and large, in Doncaster, as it is having in my constituency. The Government are now turning to a national review of skillcentres. The decision to implement such a review came as a bombshell to the community that I represent in Maryport. My constituency is suffering from heavy unemployment in the same way as Doncaster. In the past year 1,000 jobs have been lost. Doncaster's population is much larger than that of my constituency and it has probably lost, proportionally, a greater number of jobs.
The national ratio of the unemployed to job vacancies is six to one. In my constituency there is considerable unemployment. The ratio of jobs to unemployed is 45 to 1. The regional ratio is


14 to 1. I assume that conditions will probably be similar in Doncaster.
The skillcentres in all these communities are seen as a key to the future. That applies especially to local industry. In my constituency—I assume that this is so in Doncaster—an industrial training association has been formed. My constituency has seen the formation of the West Cumberland Industrial Training Association. It estimates that by 1988 there will be a shortfall of 800 jobs in my constituency. The skillcentre was seen as an important participant in the exercise of ensuring that such shortages did not take place.
As soon as the Government's decision was announced, I contacted the 137 companies in my constituency. I also contacted the trade unions. My hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven (Dr. Cunningham) and I are being flooded with replies from local industry. It is demanding that the centre be kept open. It is seen as having a vital role in the infrastructure of the region in the furtherance of industrial development in the county. I refer specifically to the centre with which I am directly concerned, but I assume that the centre in Doncaster—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman cannot do that. He is doing very well, but he must not specifically refer to the centre in his constituency.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: One has to engage in mental acrobatics, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to be able to participate in these debates. Thank you for guiding me, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I am informed that the national rate of placings of skilled people passing through skillcentres is about 60 per cent. The rate of those taking placings that may not relate directly to the skills that they have acquired in the centres is 82 per cent. I assume that in the case of my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) the statistics for his region are similar. In the skillcentre in my constituency, 60 per cent. of those who have been trained for a certain skill find placings. That was shown in a survey carried out last year. If we take into account those who take placings in employment that does not directly relate to skill, one reaches a figure of 86 per cent. of all placings.
Since the construction of the skillcentre in my constituency—as is probably the case in the skillcentre in Doncaster—we have been training approximately 130 per year. Since 1969 we have added to the skilled pool of West Cumbria a total of 1,200 trainees. That is an excellent record. I hope that the Government would not wish to intervene in any way.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: When my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) speaks of placings following skillcentre training, he should be careful. I accept his figures, but he must be careful not to project the wrong image of the area that we discussed earlier today. The placings from our skillcentres—and the Government might take up the matter—are not as many as those in the South-East and the West Midlands, for the obvious reason that it is more difficult to find employment in the Northern region.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I have stated that in the case of my skillcentre—and I assume that the situation is similar to that in the skillcentre of my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster—we have a high level of placings, because there is a shortage of skills and we are seeking—

Mr. Harold Walker: My hon. Friend will recall that I pointed out to the Minister that there is inconsistency, not to say a contradiction, in the figures one receives from different sources. Today the Minister supplied me, in reply to a parliamentary question, with figures that are wholly at variance with other figures that I received, not only about my skillcentre but about other centres from regional level. They are quite different and contrast with the figures that I received from my skillcentre in Doncaster. If there is to be such a wide variation, it throws the whole of the statistics open to question.
The closure programme is not a rumour. It is a firm proposal from the Government to the Manpower Services Commission. If that proposal is based on statistics, the Government should consider the reliability of the statistics before the disastrous programme is imposed on us.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: My right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster raises an important matter. I have been worried about the source of figures that have been circulating nationally about the skillcentres. I am not in a position to speak for my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, but in the case of my skillcentre I telephoned the Department of Employment and was able to obtain its figures, and they should be the same as those supplied to the Minister.
I raise another matter that is of a general nature, and perhaps I shall not have to try so hard to comply with the general tenor of the debate. I strongly object to the manner in which I was informed that a decision was about to be taken. If it had not been for a telephone call from a colleague, I would not have known about it. Yet the trade union, nationally, had been informed on 23 December, and it was asked not to make the information public. The great majority of hon. Members were informed probably as a result of an article in a national journal on 1 or 2 January
I take strong exception to a civil servant sitting in an office in London, accountable to a Minister, being in a position to put on a list the name of a town, when that list could lead to a future decision that would affect in a dramatic way the industrial development of my constituency, without consulting me as the Member of Parliament concerned sent to Parliament to represent 52,000 people. An arbitrary placing on a list can cause great anxiety in my area, which leads to great lobbying about something which at the time was highly speculative.
I have contacted a number of people about this. If decisions are to be taken—I hope that these remarks are relayed to other Departments—about the future industrial development of my constituency, I plead that the Member of Parliament for Workington be informed so that he knows how to inform his constituents and thus at least appears to be a reasonable Member.

Mr. Ted Fletcher: I support the plea of my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) that the Doncaster skillcentre be kept open. I have sympathy with him, because the Darlington skillcentre is on the list

to be closed. We have to confine our remarks to Doncaster, but no doubt much of my right hon. Friend's argument applies also to Darlington.
Part of the Government's campaign of economy cuts is drastically to reduce the personnel employed in this sector. They intend to reduce the manpower by 620–520 in skillcentres and about 100 in rehabilitation centres. I do not know the position in Doncaster, but 25 per cent. of the trainees in my constituency are subsidised by local industry—concerns such as British Rail, the National Coal Board and large engineering firms—to the tune of about £65 a week.
One wonders how these random guesses have been made. What have Maryport, Darlington and Doncaster in common? In Darlington, 80 per cent of the trainees immediately secure employment. No doubt things are similar in Doncaster. We have high unemployment in common. Both areas are trying to attract particularly small businesses.
Government spokesmen pay lip service to the need to help small businesses, but the first thing industrialists want to know is the availability of manpower—at Doncaster as well as Darlington. They will not go to an area which lacks skilled operatives, so we are receiving representations from employers that we should try to induce the Government not to close this centre. The establishment in my constituency is 10 years old and was purpose-built as a skillcentre. If it were sold off and we needed skilled labour in future—as we are bound to do—we should have to start again from scratch.
We must look at the problem in terms of the Government's overall policy. They intend to reduce the staff of the Manpower Services Commission by 3,400 in the next three years. In that context we must consider the position of the skillcentres. Many of the instructors are dedicated men and women. Many, such as skilled welders and engineers, could obtain better remuneration working outside a skillcentre. They work in skillcentres with a sense of dedication because they feel that they are making a contribution to the economy of the country. I have met many such workers in my constituency and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster has met many in his constituency. Such men are prepared to work for less money


than they could earn in the market generally, because they feel that they are doing a worthwhile job.
After such sacrifice and dedication, they are told by the Government that they are not needed, that within 12 months the skillcentre in which they are working will be closed and that they must look for other employment. That is destroying the seed corn. The Government are destroying the potential of people to obtain skills. It is not merely a question of training school leavers and helping to provide them with a skill. We have reached the point in technological development where a man needs to be retrained at least three or four times during his working life. Conditions change, and people need training to adapt themselves to those new conditions.
As the pace of technology increases, it will be even more necessary to train people quickly. It is verbiage to pay lip-service to the need for increased production, skilled manpower and to match our skills to those of our West German and Japanese competitors when there is no intention of ensuring that the necessary machines are available to produce the results. If we want skilled manpower and skilled womanpower, we must be prepared to pay for it.
There is a philosophy within the Tory Party that if anything moves it must be hit on the head and cut out. There is no discretion or discrimination as to what bureaucracy could be ended and what must be sustained. As soon as the Government took office, they issued an order saying that no more civil servants were to be employed for six months. That has led to many problems. The Government are now cutting back with a large axe a service which is vital to areas such as Doncaster, Darlington and other parts of the North-East.
Rehabilitation centres in Maryport and Billingham are among 20 which are to be closed. The Government are not simply conducting an exercise against skillcentres. They are conducting an exercise against rehabilitation centres. Among the three due to be closed in my area, one is a centre for disabled people, who are already being asked whether they would be prepared to travel 30 miles to the next centre at Felling.
The problem to be tackled is that of the kind of training that we are to give

to young people and to workers whose skills have become redundant and who need to be retrained. The Tories have the answer. It is that those people do not need retraining. Retraining was brought about by a Labour Government because exceptionally large employers had fallen down on the task of training their apprentices.
I add my plea to that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster. I hope that the Government will look seriously at the future of skillcentres. If they do not, many unskilled people will be unemployed for long periods.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: Does my hon. Friend agree that while great problems are created by a reluctance to train ordinary people in society to prepare themselves for jobs coming forward now or in the future, there are even greater problems in relation to mentally handicapped people who need training so that they may be able to do some kind of work? Does my hon. Friend agree also that the Tory Government are acting against their future?

Mr. Fletcher: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend, whose intervention has emphasised the point that I was seeking to make. If training is not available, many people will be destined to spend many years unemployed.
In my region, 7,000 people are unemployed. If people have no skill, it is difficult for them to get employment. There are 37 vacancies for skilled engineers in the area. The employers, who badly need engineers, will have to get them from other parts of the country or allow the vacancies to remain unfilled. In 10 years in Darlington, well over 3,000 people have been given training in various skills and they are now making a contribution towards building up the economy of the country.
The Tory Government's policy is one of despair, allowing capitalism to find its own solutions. It is in line with the philosophy of the free market, of letting everyone look after himself—the "I'm all right, Jack" philosophy. We have to think again about caring for the community. We have to consider policies that will benefit the community as a whole.
I have no hesitation in endorsing all the remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster. I hope that


the Minister will give consideration not only to Doncaster but to Darlington and to the many other skillcentres now under sentence of death.

Mr. Alec Woodall: I humbly apologise to my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) for not having been present when the debate started. I congratulate him most heartily on his initiative in obtaining the debate. I shall be brief and refer only to that part of my constituency that is affected by the proposed closure.
According to the figures that I have, there are 78 trainees attending the Doncaster skillcentre from the Barnsley metropolitan borough council area. Of that number, 54 are from that part of my constituency known as the Dearne—that is, Bolton-on-Dearne, Goldthorpe and Thurnscoe.
Three years ago the Barnsley metropolitan borough council, appreciating the difficulties that we had in providing jobs and job opportunities, established an industrial estate at Bolton-on-Dearne. We were favoured by the Government at that time. We obtained two advance factories, which are now occupied.
Mine is a purely coal mining area. The days have long passed when the National Coal Board recruited anybody and everybody. The days have long passed when, at the age of 15 or 16, a boy left school and knew that he could go to the colliery office and get a job immediately. The National Coal Board is short of skilled mine workers, but the day has long passed when to a large extent it recruited young boys from school. It now creams off the best of the boys and gives them training in its own establishments. The rest are left with the desperate task of trying to find a job when they have no skill. Most of these young people in my area are training at the skillcentre, trying to equip themselves for the first job in their lives after leaving school. With the closure of this skillcentre, the situation will be very bleak.
The Government have recognised the fact that this part of South Yorkshire is a black spot. Thank goodness we are to retain our intermediate area status. Having said that, however, without the skills being there, what firm will come

with new industry wanting skilled or semiskilled labour? The job opportunities are practically nil, and will continue to be nil until we get people who have been trained and have a skill at their fingertips, or have at least some idea of how to tackle a job.
I am afraid that this skillcentre closure will be the death knell of the hopes of many young people in my area. The Minister shakes his head, but that is a fact of life. He and I are already having a dialogue about another part of my constituency which is to lose its intermediate area status this year. At present we have between 15 and 16 per cent. unemployed in that part of the constituency. In the part which is to retain intermediate area status we are now to lose the opportunity for these lads to be trained for a job.
I beg the Minister to think again before he takes this drastic step. In South Yorkshire we have the worst spot in the whole of Yorkshire and Humberside—the Dearne area, the Rotherham area and the area between Doncaster, Barnsley and Rotherham. I beg the Minister to look again and, please, to spare this skillcentre and to give these young lads a chance.

Mr. Norman Buchan: I am very glad to be able to enter the debate in support of my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) in defence of the skillcentre at Doncaster and to assure him that he has fraternal solidarity from north of the border. As it happens, at the lower end of my constituency at Port Glasgow we are facing a very similar situation.
I have heard the figures for the North and North-East. In order to make comparisons so that we may judge what the Government are trying to do, I also tell my right hon. Friend that the skillcentre which the Government are closing in my area is in a similar black spot with a very high percentage of male unemployment—11 per cent. or 12 per cent. This is why we must probe the Government deeply about their intentions in relation to such areas as Doncaster and my constituency.
I cannot understand what the Government are up to in this matter. Roughly, their economic argument is that if we


reduce public expenditure, for some reason private industry will flourish. But the only people who will allow private industry to flourish are the people who will go into that industry with fresh skills and retraining. Yet the very same Government are cutting back on the possibility and potential of fresh skills and fresh industry. It makes no sense whatsoever, even given the Government's rather crazy economic arguments.
Looking at my own area, to take an example and to make a comparison with Doncaster, one finds that there are 700 youth unemployed and another 700 in the youth opportunities programme. In other words, I am talking about 1,400 young people in the towns of Greenock, Port Glasgow and Gourock. It is an abysmal situation. It is not being helped by actions such as this by the Government.
Finally, we need to know the facts. Why have the Government chosen these particular areas such as Doncaster and Port Glasgow and Greenock? Is it the old argument that a Tory Government will support only success and will, therefore, flood skillcentres into the home counties? Surely that is nonsense. The areas in which we require them are the areas which require regional redevelopment. That means the black spots of unemployment, the growing unemployment areas such as Doncaster and the lower end of my constituency.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: Is my hon. Friend aware that certain microelectronics companies in the United States have taken from Scotland, and from the whole of Great Britain, a great many of the best of our young people? Does he agree that we are neglecting the training of our young people if we cannot keep them in this country?

Mr. Buchan: We are neglecting the training of our workers and we shall not be able to keep them in the regions and in the country. In my constituency, IBM is concerned with micro technology and we have a new microelectronics factory starting up. However, for every 100 people who are made redundant in the shipbuilding industry only 10 can be employed in these highly geared technological industries. At one time in Greenock and Port Glasgow there were as many as 400 boys in training in the shipyard, including Scott Lithgow, but

that number has been reduced to just over 200, which leaves a large gap to be filled.
We need answers from the Government about my constituency and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster. Do not the Government want skilled people in industry? Do they want to destroy the seed corn of Britain? Are they trying to deindustrialise Britain? The whole community in my area—the provost, churches, trade unions and management—has joined together to fight the proposals, and I am backing them as strongly as my right hon. Friend is backing Doncaster.

Mr. Ted Leadbitter: This is a natural continuation of our earlier debate and is of great concern to the Northern region. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fletcher) attached his concern to the timely Adjournment debate raised by my right lion. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker).
For many years my constituency has been top of the unemployment league in the Northern region, and at present unemployment for men stands at slightly over 16 per cent. The position is serious for young people.
I, too, should like some precise answers from the Government. The country will not be persuaded that the Government are properly tackling the problem of unemployment, and their determination for an all-round cut in public expenditure raises serious questions. The youth opportunities programme is being cut by £25 million and the special temporary employment programme for young people is being cut by £45 million. I understand that last year about 248,000 young people were out of work, and the Manpower Services Commission estimates that by early 1982 478,000 young people will be out of work. The number of unemployed people under 19 years of age will, on a conservative estimate, double between the latter part of 1979 and early 1982. The Labour Government had a prudent policy to train young people, but this Government are cutting down financial support, which is a disastrous recipe.
About a decade ago a shipbuilding yard in my constituency closed and in recent months there has been a cutback in


steel-making. We have therefore been robbed of the foundation for training our young people and are entirely dependent on the training structure laid down by the Labour Government.
It is time that the country knew that the position is even worse than that. In Doncaster, Darlington and the other areas on the closure list, the number of unemployed school leavers will increase. We are to have fewer books in our schools, thousands of qualified teachers will be out of work, all sorts of restrictions are to be placed on the education service and we could face the dangerous situation of young people entering the adult world more handicapped than they ought to be or have been in recent years.
We are racing towards rapid technological changes. A new language of technology is being developed and many young people will be placed at a serious disadvantage. If we do not meet the problem now, those young people may suffer for the rest of their lives and will not have even the chance of taking their proper place in the technological age that we are entering.
This is a sad situation. Hon. Members should not look at the clock and wonder when the debate will finish or think that other debates this week are more important. We may soon be discussing the serious matters of the migratory habits of trout or the sexual habits of the oriental flea. The problems facing our young people must have priority.
I learnt a great deal from those great people who man the skillcentres when they lobbied us last week. A number of my hon. Friends met the deputations and I was impressed by the man who said that he wanted us to understand that those taking part in the lobby were skilled people teaching in the centres. They were not worried about their jobs, because, with their skills, they could get employment in industry. They said "We are worried about the young people." I was impressed by that, as was my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster.

Mr. John Golding: I intervene with some embarrassment because I am sponsoring a Bill on migratory trout and salmon later in the Session. My hon. Friend has spoken about the problems facing young people,

though the skillcentres cater mostly for those over 19. Has he reflected from his great experience on the impact of the closure of skilicentres on a group that is as hard hit as are the young unemployed, namely, the adult long-term unemployed, of whom my hon. Friend has as much experience as any hon. Member?

Mr. Leadbitter: My hon. Friend has made a responsible intervention. He reminds me that the young unemployed are an addition to those aged over 19 who are out of work and who represent added pressures on retraining and not just first training.
I appreciate that the Minister is limited in what he will be able to say in reply to the debate. Knowing the hon. Gentleman as I do, I am sure that if he cannot answer our questions he will at least transmit to his right hon. Friend the concern of the House and the matters which have been raised in this debate.
Is it true that we are concerned here merely with an overall decision of policy to reduce public expenditure by a certain percentage? If it is, we should like to know. If it is not, we should like to have the true position explained to us.
Has the Department consulted hon. Members who represent constituencies in the areas concerned? Has it consulted the trade union movement, the employers and such organisations as the North of England Development Council and the related bodies in Scotland and Wales and on Merseyside? Has it tried to satisfy itself about the skills required in those areas, even at a time when it is necessary to respond to the Government's call for a cut in public expenditure? Has there been any objective examination made in an attempt to work out the skill requirements in those areas? If any of those organisations has been consulted at all, what response has the Department received? If those organisations have not been consulted, shall we be told?
It appears that the ayatollah of Leeds, North-East—the Secretary of State for Industry—is not prepared to listen. But there comes a time when the country makes a Government listen, tolerance becomes outworn and the Government have to be told that enough is enough.
Like my hon. Friends who represent other parts of the United Kingdom which


have similar problems, I am not prepared merely to accept what a Government or some Minister has to say purely because it falls in line with the Cabinet decision to cut a certain percentage from public expenditure. There has to be a dialogue involving Members of Parliament, the CBI, the trade union movement and the training establishments concerned so that everyone can see clearly that what is being done is for the country's good and is not damaging it.
The Government have nearly gone too far. It is all very well kneeling at the altar of monetarism, but this nation was not built on one gospel alone. The broad church of opinion will assert itself. I appeal to the Government to think again, and I use the word "appeal" in a desperate attempt to find some rapport with the Government about the future of skillcentres and our young people.
But, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) reminded me, it is not only our young people about whom we are concerned. Many of their fathers are out of work and need retraining. They need desperately to feel part of the communities in which they live. They must not be cast aside to appease the doctrinaire views of the guru of Leeds, North-East, our abrasive Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, in a few weeks from now, will be taking at least another £1,000 million out of public expenditure.
In that context, it is important to get the message across to the Government: "For God's sake, do not have a confrontation." I assure the House that I should rather see a Conservative Government in office for a longer period provided they were prepared to listen to some of these reasoned arguments than have the nation plunged into a state of turbulence from which it would take years to recover. I believe in the democratic principle and the process of consultation. Will the Government please listen?

Mr. Allen McKay: I shall be brief, because the subject has been well covered. I rise to support my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) in his request to be told why the skillcentres have to close. It is,

no doubt, for economic reasons. It would appear that Government Departments have been given a remit to cut, and instead of consulting each other each Department has proceeded independently to see what finance it can save.
In cutting the skillcentres, the Government are cutting out a vital element in the industry strategy. The Government, who decided on a policy of change—a policy that they have tried to force through irrespective of the disruption that it might cause—are by their actions preventing that change from taking place. The skillcentres are used for a variety of purposes. They are used by the further education authorities to enable people to develop their skills. They are also used by the unemployed, and the Government are increasing the rate of unemployment, which means that the skillcentres will be needed more than ever. The skillcentres are also used by firms that are unable to provide for themselves the type of training their workers require. The National Coal Board, for example, for which I worked, has frequently used skillcentres. The board has training facilities for 99 per cent. of its employees, but there have been occasions when it has required special training skills to cater for special jobs, particularly in its workshops, and it has used skillcentres.
The area I represent runs into Barnsley and Sheffield. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) has put Barnsley's case. I left Sheffield three and a half hours ago after talking to 1,000 men who, because of the Government's policies, are now on strike. Some of them will no doubt lose their jobs in the near future. These are the very people for whom skillcentres would provide retraining.
I am in correspondence with a number of men who are being made redundant by the National Coal Board and are now seeking work. These people have clerical skills, but because their skills are not needed in the area they are seeking to be retrained in other skills which are required. If the Government mean what they say about change—that the industrial base has to be changed—and if we are moving into an era in which there will be a working elite, as will happen under the Government's policies, that working elite must be skilled. But the skillcentres


that will be needed to support that Government policy will be cut.
I hope that the Minister can reply to some of the questions that have been asked, because the people whom we represent will want to know why the Government are acting in this way. Is it part of a general strategy or is it a haphazard cut simply designed to save money, to be made regardless of the social consequences and the consequences for skill?

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Jim Lester): I thank the right hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) for initiating this debate, because it gives me an opportunity to make the position clear on possible skillcentre closures, about which we have all seen a good deal of press comment and speculation, some over-dramatisation and not a little passion.
Other hon. Members with skillcentres in their constituencies will also be grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising this question. I congratulate the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) on his ingenuity in making his speech. I had a word with Mr. Deputy Speaker to try to ensure that it was made, because I realise that the hon. Gentleman wants to take every opportunity to put forward the case for his constituency.
It is also interesting to see the support from other parts of the country. We heard from the hon. Members for Darlington (Mr. Fletcher), for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) and for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter).
Perhaps I may correct something that I heard the right hon. Gentleman say twice today about the youth opportunities programme and the special temporary employment programme. Although there was a reduction in expenditure overall, the budgets of both programmes have been consistently under spent. What the right hon. Gentleman did not say was that this year the youth opportunities programme was expanded by 30 per cent. in real terms, that we have maintained the guarantee to all young people unemployed after Christmas or Easter, which the previous Government started, and that the STEP scheme, even though concentrated in areas of higher unemployment, has

increased in real terms over the past 12 months. Those are the facts.

Mr. Harold Walker: The hon. Gentleman cannot get away with what he has just said. He must not mislead the House. He should confirm that the Government have been able to maintain them only at the expense of savage cuts in other programmes. Did not the Chancellor of the Exchequer announce in June a cut of £170 million from the whole range of special measures that the previous Government had introduced?

Mr. Lester: The right hon. Gentleman's point was on youth opportunities and STEP, and that is what I have answered with real facts and figures, and the number of places affecting young people.
If the right hon. Gentleman were not such a good runner, we should not have had the debate at all. He had the support of 11 hon. Members, a very convincing team of cricketers, including the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) and the hon. Members for Don Valley (Mr. Welsh), for Dearne Valley (Mr. Wainwright), for Goole (Dr. Marshall), for Hemsworth (Mr. Woodall) and for Penistone (Mr. McKay). Few Adjournment debates can have attracted such support and so many Yorkshire men at any one time.
The first point that I must make clear is that no decisions to close particular skillcentres have yet been taken, although the Manpower Services commissioners are to consider proposals that will involve closures. As I understand it, the much-publicised list is a list of candidates for possible closure that will be considered by the commissioners on 28 January. I remind hon. Members who talked about wider consideration that the commissioners consist of representatives of the CBI, the TUC and educationalists. They are independent people, independent of my Department.

Mr. Leadbitter: I agree with that, but did the commission ask the Government whether it could consider closures, or did the Government ask it to do so?

Mr. Lester: If the hon. Gentleman will give me a chance to make a little more of my speech, he will learn the answer. I should like to put some sense, perspective and reason into the whole question.


In the view of the MSC's training services division, all the 20 skillcentres and annexes on the list could be cases for closure in the interests of rationalising the skillcentre network, achieving a more cost-effective operation, and providing the right quantity and mix of skillcentre training in the right places.
If all the closures happened, which they will not, there would still be more places available than trainees to take them, and considerable room for expansion. That is if all the closures are going ahead, and they are not. That hardly squares with the idea that we are denying anyone the opportunity to train.
We all recognise that rationalisation must be tempered to some degree by other considerations.

Mr. Buchan: Surely it is too much to tell the House that this has been done in the interests of rationalisation. Is it not the case that it is imposed upon the commission by the Government's crazy devotion to the imposition of a cut in public expenditure? Even if there would be a sufficiency of places after such a process, on present figures, the figures must rise as people leave jobs, as jobs in old industry phase out and as new industries phase in. With the Government's economic policy and unemployment creeping up to more than 1½ million, there may be a grave inadequacy of places throughout existing centres, let alone the core that will be left after the Government's savage cuts.

Mr. Lester: If the hon. Gentleman would let me complete, or even start, my speech, he might find some of the answers. I am not trying to mislead the House. I am giving the facts. If all these centres and annexes were closed, there would still be more vacancies in the existing and expanded network, with the new centres which are being built, than trainees available.
However, we all recognise that rationalisation must be tempered in some degree by other considerations. I bow to no one in the House over my concern about structural change, unemployment and the problem of young people and training. I have taken great interest in these matters in the time that I have been in this office. Therefore, we recommend in principle the closure of not all the skillcentres on that list. Even that will not be the end of

the matter. The Scottish and Welsh committees of the Manpower Services Commission must be consulted before the decisions are finalised. No decisions have been taken which I must defend or otherwise. I have listened with interest to what the right hon. Member for Doncaster and others have had to say. I shall, of course, ensure that the Manpower Services Commission is made aware of their arguments and the strength of their views before it considers the closures next week.
I appreciate the point made about the carry-on statistics. I understand that these matters are judged on the same basis as they were judged when the right hon. Member for Doncaster was at the Department of Employment.

Mr. Harold Walker: We did not close any skillcentres.

Mr. Lester: The basis of statistics has not changed with the change of Administration.

Mr. Golding: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Lester: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment.
It may help if I set out my understanding of the reasons for and the effects of the proposed rationalisation generally and then in respect of the Doncaster centre in particular.
I do not think that there is any dispute that the kind of training for adults offered by skillcentres is not only important but essential to our economy. The Secretary of State has not changed his view. Nor have J. Skillcentre training of itself will not resolve skill shortages, but it can help if industry is willing to make the best use of both trainees and the facilities available. The opportunity to upgrade skills and, by so doing, to increase the prospects of employment is important for people whether in or out of jobs.
I think that we might all also agree that the TOPS system must be flexible and able to respond to changes in the labour market in terms both of where demand for skilled workers is and of the skills in which people are trained. Where we might perhaps disagree is on how far we should expect training facilities to go before industrial need, in the hope that


trade will follow the flag, rather than respond to known demands, so that we can be certain that people who go through this very demanding training have reasonable prospects of jobs at the end of it. This change of emphasis has come through in the light of experience. I now give way to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding).

Mr. Golding: A couple of pages ago, before he got bogged down in the brief, the Minister said "We are recommending the closures". Who are "We"? What is the Government's policy towards the closures? Are they waiting until the Manpower Services Commission has made a recommendation?

Mr. Lester: The training services division of the Manpower Services Commission is making these proposals to the commissioners. Until the commissioners have seen them, we in the Department have no part.

Mr. Harold Walker: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I submit that the hon. Gentleman is misleading the House. He must not do it. He suggested that these proposals had come from the training services division of the Manpower Services Commission.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Richard Crawshaw): Order. I take it that the Minister has given way, because that is not a point of order. Hon. Members are often misled.

Mr. Harold Walker: With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is a point of order when a Minister misleads the House. I am accusing the Minister of misleading the House. We had it from the chairman of the Manpower Services Commission, and the hon. Gentleman should know that at a deputation last week the Secretary of State confirmed, that this programme was prepared after Sir Derek Rayner, the consultant brought in from Marks and Spencer, examined the skillcentre network and came up with the table which has been, or will be, submitted to the Manpower Services Commission. Sir Derek is the Government's man and he is employed by them. The Minister should answer for Sir Derek. The Manpower Services Commission is not responsible for him.

Mr. Lester: If the right hon. Gentleman will give me the opportunity to answer, I shall deal with the position of both Sir Derek Rayner and the Government. Heaven help us, the right hon. Gentleman has given me no chance at all.
We genuinely want to see use made of the facilities for adult training offered by both the TOPS scheme and by direct training services. We do not think that the best use is being made of skillcentres at present. Hon. Members will be well aware that the skillcentre network, which has had its ups and downs—it is not all perfect—was not the result of careful planning. It just grew. Where skillcentres and annexes are situated has often been determined not so much by logic, demand, transport facilities, and so on, as by opportunity or political pressure. They may be fair reasons in their own right, but they do not result in a coherent and effective network of skillcentres providing enough training where it is most needed at least cost.
In particular, the bulk of skillcentres have tended to be located in areas of high unemployment. It was thought that availability of skillcentres' training would help those unemployed or made redundant to acquire new skills, that the availability of a pool of trained labour would help to attract new industry to these areas and that training people "for stock" during economic downturns would help economic growth when the upturn came.
But, sadly, events have not matched the theory. Most workers made redundant by major closures have not chosen to undertake skillcentre training. Of course, unemployed people have come forward for training in areas of high unemployment, but nowhere near in large enough numbers to fill all the places available, and not in trades in which they have some prospect of a job afterwards. In any case, there is frequently a surplus of skilled labour in high unemployment areas, and, not surprisingly, trade unions are opposed to adding to the number of skilled unemployed.
Unless a skillcentre trainee, who has been through a greatly accelerated course, has the opportunity to put into practice in a job soon after he completes his course what he has learnt, the evidence is that he rapidly loses his skills—and with them, of course, his prospect


of employment. The upshot of this is that we now have many skillcentres—mainly in areas of high unemployment where the number of training places per worker is vastly higher than average—with consistently poor performance, in terms both of number of training places occupied and of trainees placed in employment using their training skills.
There is somehing of a vicious circle. The knowledge gets around that job prospects at the end of a six, nine or even 12-month stint of concentrated training are dim. People are discouraged from taking courses and occupancy drops. Skillcentre management tries to increase numbers trained, perhaps by letting through slightly less than suitable trainees. Employers and unions then can get the impression that skillcentre trainees are not much help, placing prospects fall, and so on. As one survey of TOPS trainees and their subsequent employment commented, there is no worse advertisement for TOPS training than an unplaced TOPS trainee.
Yet how can we expect large numbers of inexperienced skillcentre trainees to get jobs in areas where there are already large numbers of unemployed skilled and experienced men? The main effects of over-training—for that is what we are talking about—are disillusionment, disappointment for the individuals concerned, a costly but unproductive TOPS system and a bad name for TOPS training generally.

Mr. Buchan: I cannot accept that value judgment without the figures to back it. My figures do not bear out what the Minister says. On the contrary, about 75 per cent. of those who complete the training manage to get posts within three to six months. It would be interesting to know how many trainees are given jobs for which they are not trained because they are seen by employers at least to be trained men even if they are trained in another skill.

Mr. Lester: I shall try to supply the hon. Gentleman with those figures.

Mr. Woodall: Does anything that the hon. Gentleman has said about skillcentres in general apply to Doncaster?

Mr. Lester: I shall be coming to Doncaster by the time I finish. I took the opportunity—I think a reasonable oppor-

tunity—to try to put the whole matter in context.
These, I understand, are the reasons why the Manpower Services Commission's training services division is seeking to rationalise the skillcentre network. The 1978 TOPS review, which was fully endorsed by the previous Administration, as the right hon. Gentleman will know, recommended that
overall efficiency of the TOPS scheme would benefit by some shift of the balance towards the regions of higher labour demands and employment growth".
More generally, it recommended that skillcentres should be much more closely aligned to their local labour market demands. These recommendations underlie the rationalisation proposals.
But the Manpower Services Commission's desire for rationalisation is not the only thing to enter the reckoning. I acknowledge what hon. Members have been saying. The skillcentre network was examined by Sir Derek Rayner, who, as hon. Members know, was appointed by the Prime Minister to seek out areas in the public service where waste could be eliminated and efficiency promoted. Although the right hon. Gentleman made some remarks about the sort of things he sold, few of us would doubt that Marks and Spencer is an example of an efficient and excellent British company. Sir Derek has recommended the closure of a number of centres and a review of performance in others with a view to closure if insufficient resources are available to run marginally efficient centres.
Most of the centres on the list to go to the MSC, and a few more, are also on Sir Derek's list. A few on his list are not on the MSC's list, including three in areas of high unemployment that may be badly affected by forthcoming redundancies. The Manpower Services Commission does not have to follow Sir Derek's recommendations lock, stock and barrel. But it does have to propose a worthwhile and positive response to them which will come up with roughly equivalent increases in efficiency in the network.
The MSC has also, as hon. Members have said, to make considerable staff savings over the next two to three years—3,400 staff in the MSC, of which about 500 will be found from the skillcentre network. I understand that about half of these savings can be made without cuts,


but some skillcentres will need to be closed if the required staff savings are to be made.
Small moves in favour of rationalisation can be, and have been, made by closing or changing classes in each centre. But class closures do not make any real impact on the present imbalance of provision between regions or on the overprovision in some localities. Nor do they save staff or much money. But they do have a disproportionately big effect on numbers trained. That, I understand, is just what the possible closures that the MSC will be considering are designed to avoid. I have outlined why there is a need for closures. I shall now try to outline the likely effects.
In selecting these candidates for possible closure, the Manpower Services Commission's main concerns have been to minimise effects on the total number of places available and of people trained, on the availability and accessibility of training, and on the range of training offered. It has, I understand, gone about this in two main ways—by choosing candidates mainly from among clusters of centres and annexes all serving one locality and by selecting centres that are likely to be replaced by new better-placed centres over the next three or four years.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: As the hon. Gentleman knows, when I came to see him the other day I referred to a statement made by Lord Gowrie outside my consitituency but relating to Maryport, in which he said that the centre would not close. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman will take the opportunity to comment on that statement. Many people in Cumbria want to know what he was saying.

Mr. Lester: I think that this would not be the occasion to quote—

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that in South Yorkshire—indeed, in Yorkshire as a whole—we are greatly restricted in the provision of skillcentres? This is one of the most important parts of the system for training our young people where there is high unemployment. What do the Government guarantee to do for our young people and for others who could be trained to move from one job to

another and be useful in society? May we have an assurance that the Government have the right attitude, or is the Minister saying, in effect, "We intend to do it regardless of the effects on society"?

Mr. Lester: I am saying that at the end of this exercise there will be more places available for trainees than ever before, contrary to the impression which hon. Members have tried to give. Some centres are being closed because they are being replaced by new, better-placed centres over the next three or four years, and that last point—the reference to new centres—is an important one to which I shall return.
What will be the overall effect of the possible proposed changes—closures and openings? Even if all the centres and annexes on the list were closed, which is most improbable, as I have said, we should end up with only about 150 places fewer than at present, since there will be the new centres being opened. Moreover, because these places would be better located where the demand is, they should be more fully used and more people could be trained—about 27,000 each year instead of fewer than 23,000 as at present. The range of courses would not be changed.
That is the global picture. What would be the effect on particular areas? As I have said, the possible closures fall into two distinct groups—those where retrenchment is proposed, intended to reduce the number of places in an overprovided area, and those where replacements are on the stocks. Let me deal with the latter first.
The Manpower Services Commission will also be deciding the shape of its future capital programme when it meets on 28 January. Two things, I think, are clear. The programme has had to be cut back because of expenditure constraints, and the scope for building and operating new centres is extremely limited unless staff, already short, can be found by making changes elsewhere.
Five of the annexes and three of the skillcentres on the MSC's list are there because they would be replaced by new centres in the near vicinity or, in the case of the annexes, by extending their parent centres. Three other annexes are proposed for closure because their classes can be transferred to their main centres.


That leaves five centres and three annexes, which, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested, would involve the loss of local facilities—I appreciate that when a skillcentre closes the loss in its area is 100 per cent.—but where new provision or wholesale transfer is not proposed. They are not necessarily the centres with the worst performance in the network, but most are part of a group of centres which overall make less contribution to their local community than they are capable of. An important point which has been put to me is that closure of these centres, if that is what is decided, would be carefully phased by the Manpower Services Commission to take account of the local unemployment and redundancy position. I accept what was said by the hon. Member for Workington, that Maryport is a special case in this situation and would need special consideration.
Last, but not least, I come to Doncaster, which is quite properly the concern of the right hon. Member for Doncaster and his hon. Friends. I understand his concern because it is a centre with which he is closely involved—indeed, I believe that he opened it—but it is included on the list, I understand, because of consistently poor occupancy and placing since it was opened. In other words, the centre has failed to deliver the goods in the way expected of it when it was built a few years ago.
Moreover, this centre is in an area reasonably well served by skillcentres, paricularly those at Sheffield and Wakefield. However, I do not deny to the right hon Gentleman that, following fairly radical pruning and replanting of classes, Doncaster has started to do much better recently. That, too, is something which, no doubt, the MSC commissioners will take into account when they consider these matters on 28 January, and I undertake to ensure that those figures, and the figures which have been given in the debate are drawn to their attention.
Finally, I remind hon. Members of the main issues. There must be skillcentre closures to make staff savings to take account of Sir Derek Rayner's recommendations, but most important of all to produce a network of skillcentres that are strong and viable and provide a genuine service to their localities to the fullest extent possible and on a cost-effective basis.
Many of the closures will be more than matched by new provision in the area. Overall, there will be no reduction in the number of places available. There should be more training done with better results for those who are trained. The important changes proposed are almost entirely in areas of considerable and apparent over-provision. I support the Manpower Services Commission in these objectives, but I must stress again that no decisions have been made. It is improbable that all the list of centres and annexes will be closed. The commission still has some key decisions to make. As I have said, I shall ensure that they are made in full knowledge of all the views expressed in the debate.

KIDNEY TRANSPLANTS (SCOTLAND)

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I thank the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Aberdeen shire, West (Mr. Fairgrieve), for courteously agreeing to be present for an Adjournment debate on the shortage of kidneys for patients in Scotland. The hon. Gentleman knows that this has been an on-off, on-off Adjournment debate. I thank him for his courtesy.
I should not normally initiate a second Adjournment debate. However, it is now clear, because of the parliamentary timetable for the Abortion (Amendment) Bill, that it is unlikely that the seventh attempt that I have made to get a Ten-Minute Bill on the kidney opting-out scheme will materialise. My Bill is scheduled to come before the House on 15 February, but that day is likely to be devoted to abortion. In this place we must seize our parliamentary opportunities.
I use as my text a heading that appears in today's edition of the Glasgow Herald. It states:
 'Kidney patients may die' warning".
The article states:
Patients requiring treatment on kidney machines in the West of Scotland may have to be left to die by the end of this year if health spending restrictions are not lifted, a leading kidney specialist said yesterday.
Kidney disease sufferers over the age of 55 applying to be taken on for dialysis are the most likely to be turned away, said Dr. Douglas Briggs, consultant physician at Glasgow Western Infirmary's renal unit.


I am not in any way criticising this Government on the ground of the cost of kidney machines and renal dialysis. The truth is that whichever party had been in power would have faced the same acute problems of costs. Figures given by the same Dr. Douglas Briggs on another occasion indicate that every kidney unit costs £5,000. The figures may vary from transplant unit to unit and from dialysis centre to centre, but Dr. Briggs' figure is £14,000 a year in running costs.
I have given an undertaking to the Minister that I shall not ask him to answer any specific question off the top of his head. However, he may care to confirm that it is a far more costly operation than anyone might imagine. Therefore, it is totally unrealistic to suppose that dialysis and the amount that we can do for kidney patients for treatable cases is not in some sense related, whether we like it or not, and whether or not it is delicate to say so, to cost.
The article continues:
Whether the life or death decisions have to be taken will depend mainly on the amount of money the Government makes available to the Greater Glasgow Health Board this year.
Although Glasgow's three renal units, at the Western, the Royal Infirmary and Stobhill Hospitals have not been cut, they had to expand to cope with increasing demand, said Dr. Douglas Briggs.
They serve an area stretching from Oban to the Borders and across country half way to Edinburgh.
That includes part of my constituency. The article states:
 'At present there are 150 patients on dialysis, and we take on 150 new patients a year,' he said".
Again, these are He continues:
We are coping now, but the situation is far from satisfactory. The unit is overcrowded and seriously ill patients are not being admitted as quickly as they should be, and we are having to send patients home before they are fully recovered.
If we are allowed to expand again soon, we will probably be able to cope. But if the present financial restrictions continue we will have to turn patients away.
Priority will be on medical grounds. Over 60 is the present upper age limit—though it is not really rigid—on the basis that someone aged 65–70 is not usually fit enough to undergo dialysis. We would have to lower that limit to 55, but there is no threat of having to turn away young people.

Britain's performance in providing kidney machines—for 61 patients per million of population—puts her twelfth place out of 27 in the European league, alongside countries like Spain, and even this level has needed charity as well as the National Health Service.
I come to the emphasis put by Dr. Briggs and many others on the need for more kidney donors. In the year ending 30 June 1978, 761 cadaver kidney transplants were performed in the United Kingdom, plus 122 from live donors. At the end of October 1978, 1,177 were on the waiting list for kidney transplant operations.
At first sight, it might appear that a relatively small increase in the number of donors available would enable all those on the waiting list to obtain a kidney. However, as the Minister knows, it is not as simple as that. The kidney that becomes available may not be suitable because of tissue matching or may be damaged already due to the late stage at which the kidney was taken from the donor. It is suggested that 50 per cent. of patients each year who need a kidney will not receive one and that 15 per cent. of those who receive a kidney will receive one that has been severely or almost irretrievably damaged.
I cannot emphasise too much that it is crucial that any organ taken is taken within half an hour of clinical death being established. If it is left longer, deterioration sets in and the organ is of no use. We should make decisions about these matters before any unhappy events and not at the time of maximum grief, when people are least able to come not even to a rational decision but to the sort of decision that they would wish to take.
The Minister, through his work in the Scottish Office and the Department of Health, may know Professor Oliver, the distinguished Edinburgh surgeon, and his wife. They tragically lost their son. They are acutely aware of the need for kidneys. They have authorised me to say that it is a matter of regret for them that in their crisis, because it was a bolt from the blue, they did not think to ask about the question of kidneys until it was too late. That is natural enough, because at a time of maximum grief one is thinking of other things. It could be said that it is up to the doctors to put such a question. Consider the amount of energy—not to say anguish—that is needed from doctors


who may have been fighting to save a life to ask the awful question "Can we have the organs of your loved one?" of some bereaved father and mother who are absolutely shattered by the death of their child, possibly in a motor cycle accident. It is not the time for that sort of question to be asked.
I am fully aware that there is another side to the argument concerning freedom. I have to take into account the answer given to the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Patten) on 4 December by the Minister for Health. The Minister, in referring to Lord Smith's report on organ transplants, said:
The Lord Smith working party advised that the best way of increasng the supply of kidneys for transplant was to make doctors and nurses more aware of the need for kidneys and the procedures to be followed. The code of practice will do this. We are arranging for it to be widely distributed within the NHS.
I wish Ministers the best of luck in distributing codes of practice, as I wished the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) luck when he was Secretary of State for Social Services and brought in the donor card scheme.

It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Cope.]

Mr. Dalyell: The difficulty is that people are reluctant to carry donor cards. I am glad that the Government Whip carries a donor card, but, according to Marplan, he is one of only 5 per cent. or fewer who do. Estimable though he may be, most of us either do not carry a card or leave it in another pocket, from a deep-seated human belief that accidents happen to other people and that if they happen to us they will happen some time in the future. Most of us do not like readily to contemplate our own demise. The donor card scheme and such estimable ideas as Medicalert and stamps on driving licences and even the suggestion of having tattoos—I do not agree with that because I do not think that puncturing the skin is the right method—will not provide the number of organs required.
The Government may refer to the survey "Public Attitudes to Kidney

Donation". In the official Government answer to the planted question—I do not complain of that—on Lord Smith's report on organ transplants, the Minister said:
The attitude of the general public towards kidney donation is also crucial. We were most encouraged to see from the Marplan survey that most people interviewed knew about the need for kidneys and sympathised with the idea of the kidney donor card scheme. But we accept that the scheme needs to be improved and more widely publicised.
Successive Governments have made every conceivable effort to publicise this scheme. Lack of publicity cannot be the problem, because the press has played an honourable part. Newspapers have done everything they can be expected to do, yet we are still short of 1,300 kidneys for treatable cases each year.
The Minister went on:
An 'opting-out' system has been suggested as an alternative to the kidney donor card scheme. The Marplan survey showed much strong opposition to the suggestion, even from people who held donor cards and were therefore fully committed to the idea of kidney donation. The Lord Smith working party shared this view. We cannot therefore support the introduction of legislation at this time to permit an 'opting-out' system."—[Official Report, 4 December 1979; Vol. 975, c. 169.]
The Marplan survey itself was something of a give-away. In paragraph 4 it undermined the authority of its own report:
Additionally, when specifically told about the current shortage of kidneys, respondents tended to claim that this would increase their inclination to donate. Similarly, when told about the current shortage of kidney machines and about the disadvantages to the patient of this form of treatment compared with a transplant, respondents' attitudes towards donation tended to become more favourable.
In other words, the more people know about how necessary an opting-out scheme is for those who have to go through the agony of renal dialysis if they are to have any decent life at all, the more likely they are to donate.
On reason why I go on and on proposing Bills on this subject and taking any opportunity to debate the matter is that, unless the scheme is argued out as widely as possible, there will be no chance of bringing public opinion around to recognising that such a scheme, although some infringement of freedom, at least is a practical and far from terrifying prospect. This is recognised by, for example, the South-East Scotland Kidney Patients


Association. I should like to read a letter of 17 December 1979 from the secretary, Mrs. Jean Scott, of Clerwood Park, Edinburgh. She says:
The above association would like to convey to you our heartfelt thanks for your efforts to get the Bill through Parliament for the Kidney and Donor scheme to be an 'opt out' one.
As an association we would assure you of our support in any way appropriate, and I am sure you could also count on the support of the Scottish Federation of Kidney Patients and also the British Federation. We are asking all our members to write to their local M.P. to urge them to support the Bill and would be prepared to have a petition signed if necessary.
I think you can understand what it would mean to us if more kidneys were available and we wish you luck in your campaign.
Mr. Harry Thomas, of the National Federation of Kidney Patients, writes:
The Federation represents 30 kidney patients' associations in England, Scotland and Wales and its governing council and executive committee is comprised entirely of members of these associations. This is because we believe that the patients are more aware of problems involved in kidney treatment than some of the well wishers who do not always understand our real needs.
I myself have been involved in this sort of activity since I became a dialysis patient 12 years ago, and although for medical reasons I cannot have a transplant I know how important it is to encourage donors. A plentiful supply of kidneys means not only more transplants, but better transplants, because the more kidneys there are available the better the chance of a good match.
Those who are most affected feel most strongly about it.
I feel entitled, because I have his permission to do so, to read a letter written by a distinguished assessor for the Central region, Mr. William Lawson, to Miss Mary Marquis, following a television interview that created some controversy. The letter has not been replied to, but I have permission to use it in public. Mr. Lawson states:
Dear Mary, I regret very much the attitude you adopted over Tam Dalyell's efforts to have an opt-out kidney donor scheme. I am personally a renal dialysis patient, and have been so for over a year now. For medical reasons I have been deemed unsuitable for a kidney transplant, so I am condemned for the remainder of my life to dialyse myself twice or three times per week. I cannot even begin to explain to you what this means, but I have no choice, and all I can do is to accept my fate and do my best not to inflict my burden on my family.
What gives me even greater concern, however, in my contact with other patients, younger

than myself (I am 47 years old), who are suffering greatly and who have only one hope in life, and that is to have a successful transplant. Because of the limited choice of kidneys offered for transplant, and due to inaccurate matching, there are still many failures. Needless to say this can be a crushing blow to a dialysis patient, the despair is unimaginable. My own view is that most people would be more than happy to allow their organs to be removed after death to alleviate the suffering of others here on earth. Death is very final.
Tam Dalyell's Bill had very little chance of success in the first place, but after your efforts with phrases like 'latter day Burke and Hares' and 'body plundering', it has been effectively killed off. I may say I think it quite wrong for a news reader in a privileged position facing millions of people to adopt an attitude and influence decisions affecting society.
I have mentioned this because I think there is no doubt that Miss Marquis's reference to Burke and Hare attitudes has done great damage in Scotland to the idea of opting out. Let me say here and now that there is absolutely no comparison whatever with Burke and Hare or body plundering. The truth is that there are many treatable cases, with productive lines in front of them—not old people who might die anyway—who, for want of matching tissue, either go on this agony of renal dialysis, if they are "lucky", or die a premature death.
This is not a matter for highlighted references that may be all right for television commentators but do not reflect the agony of those involved.
I should like to quote two more letters, One is from Mrs. Mary Hamnett, of Aberdour. She writes:
I would like to say how much I support your efforts to make the donation of a kidney an 'opting out' obligation for the apathetic as opposed to a 'positive move' made by the normally public spirited. I have a donor card but, quite frankly, if I were in a car crash, it is doubtful if my card, if found, would be found in time. In fact, the whole question of 'organ' donation should ideally be placed on an 'opting out' basis. I feel strongly about this, as personally I cannot imagine anything worse than being plugged into a machine. There are obviously strong legal objections but I do feel that if possible those who are apathetic about such things as donor cards should be forced into some sort of decision. I suppose that the trouble is that you cannot cover all of the population involved—it would need something like the voters' roll in order to cover all households—but think of the saving in suffering and money.
That is the kind of view that has been put to me very often—that we have to think, as I have said previously, of the saving in money, because we all know that National Health resources are finite. We


also have to think of the burden on the families of those who undergo the agony of dialysis.
I now quote from a letter from Mrs. Mary Fiddler of Barnton Park Gardens, Edinburgh. She writes:
I listened with interest to you this morning on a programme where kindney donors were being discussed. Time seems to be one of the most important factors. If a patient who is a willing kidney donor dies in hospital, the doctor is there, the kidney is there and the evidence should be there also. Would it be possible for all kidney donors to have a special tattoo, perhaps on the sole of the foot, to enable doctors to act without delay, whenever the patient was found to be clinically dead?
I insist that before any organ is taken clinical death must be established by at least two doctors. This was the view of every serious report on the subject, including that of the Maclennan committee, which reported 11 years ago.
I do not expect, being realistic, that the Government, after these public opinion surveys and after the Lord Smith working party report, will be able either to help private Members' legislation through—let alone on the basis of a Ten-Minute Bill—or produce immediately legislation of their own.
This is not the occasion on which to indulge in party politics and to talk on a political basis about there being less money for the National Health Service as such. That is not my kind of argument. The kind of argument that I would further adduce is that, given that this kind of organ transplantation operation can be done, first, with a much greater degree of success than ever before, secondly, that there is much more awareness of it and much more demand for it and, thirdly, that the availability of matching tissue increases greatly the chance of success, in these circumstances the Government should reflect very deeply on the issues involved and not be over-influenced by the Marplan results.
I see that the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Stevens) has very courteously entered the Chamber, and I think that I know why. During the recess he sent me a very courteous letter from one of his distinguished constituents, at, I think, the Hammersmith hospital—a man who was involved in transplants and who took a different view. I would be less than candid if I did not say that there are, indeed, distinguished surgeons who are

concerned about the doctor-patient relationship and, indeed, not only the hon. Gentleman's constituent but that very distinguished surgeon, Professor Sells, of Liverpool. On the other hand, there are those, such as Professor Roy Calne, of Cambridge, and, indeed, many others, who have been driven to the conclusion that only if a contracting-out scheme is introduced is there any chance of getting anything like the number and range of matching tissues that are needed.
Therefore, I hope that the Government will continue to think hard about these issues—not, to use Mills' phrase, to go into any kind of deep slumber of a decided opinion on the basis of a Marplan survey which I challenge and a report of a working party under Lord Smith of Marlow that serious people must take a good deal more seriously.
I am not demanding tonight that the Minister from the Scottish Office should give any long answer. It would be unreasonable, on a second Adjournment debate, to ask him to do so. What I ask the Minister is that he and his officials should reflect carefully on the kind of arguments that have been put forward and that, at their convenience—preferably before 15 February, when my Bill may come up—they should at least state in a letter what the Scottish Office attitude is likely to be to these difficult issues.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Russell Fairgrieve): I think that all hon. Members know of the great and continued interest of the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) in this subject. Straight away I say to him how much I appreciate his description of this "on-off" situation tonight. It is only a matter of an hour or so ago that he mentioned to me as I was passing—on my way, I hoped, out of the House—that he would be having his debate. Therefore, I have risen to speak without the normal Government brief and without the officials who are usually present in the Box. However, I am glad to do so and I hope that I shall be able to make a small contribution to the debate.
As I say, I know of the hon Member's interest in this subject, and I think I can say that he knows mine, which is not dissimilar.

Mr. Dalyell: Yes, certainly.

Mr. Fairgrieve: We are both card-carrying Members. Both my wife and I had ourselves down in our wills for spare part surgery or anything of that nature long before I had the privilege of becoming a member of the present Government. Therefore, I say straight away that the hon. Gentleman was very fair tonight in warning me and not expecting to get a detailed reply.
What I can add to what the hon. Gentleman has said is that, as he knows, there are to be no spending cuts in the Health Service in Scotland. Therefore, dialysis is not affected in any way—unless, of course, costs rise to such an extraordinary degree that everything is affected. But I repeat that there are to be no cuts in spending in real terms in the Health Service. I accept the hon. Gentleman's astronomical figure for the running costs of dialysis and will have the matter checked.
I know of the overcrowded demand for the service. Before Christmas, my next-door neighbour's wife had both her kidneys removed and has to go to Edinburgh twice a week. I have also visited the centre in Glasgow, and it is heart-rending to see these people who have to use these machines for three hours twice a week. It is a trying, abnormal and sad existence.
The hon. Gentleman is probably correct in saying that we are twelfth in the European league, and I am sorry to hear that. I also accept that we need more kidney donors and that there are problems about non-suitability and late availability. The lapse of half an hour may make it too late.
The hon. Gentleman also made a valid point about people being contacted at a time of maximum grief. Not long after my election to Aberdeenshire, West, a constituent telephoned me in great distress. She had been contacted by the medical profession 10 minutes before being told by the police of her husband's death. What an impossible situation!
I accept the need for change. The hon. Gentleman knows that we are changing the size of the donor card. The present paper card is not being carried. The edges become frayed and the colour comes off. We are producing a more expensive plastic card, which is the same size as a credit card, with information

on the bottom about who should be contacted.
Doctors can also help a great deal by getting in touch with their colleagues.
It is incumbent on the Government to give the hon. Gentleman's remarks detailed thought to see whether, because of the influences that he mentions, such as media, the Marplan survey of the opt-out plan was accurate. With the report in their hands, however, the Government cannot make another decision without considering the matter thoroughly. I also know of Lord Smith's report on organ transplants, and we shall naturally consider that.
To answer the point that I believe the hon. Gentleman is primarily concerned with, although I cannot speak on behalf of the DHSS south of the border, I assure him that his remarks and my reply will be reported to the DHSS. I shall ask that Department to consider his remarks seriously, and at the Scottish Office we shall certainly do so.
I cannot commit myself to an answer on the controversial opt-out plan to which the hon. Gentleman has been drawing the attention of the House for some time, but in the Scottish Office we shall consider what we can do to bring to the attention of the public the tragedy and suffering of these people. We do not realise what life is like for those who suffer that three-hour, unpleasant, uncomfortable procedure, knowing that it will happen again in a couple of days. We wish to do everything possible to make more kidneys available.
As the hon. Gentleman probably knows, there is a higher awareness of the scheme in Scotland than there is south of the border. I had the privilege of meeting the lady in Scotland who had a kidney transplant and afterwards gave birth to twins on Christmas Day. That gave us a great fillip and terrific coverage for the scheme. I regret that it should have come about that way, but it helped us, and we have a higher awareness of the problem.
I thank the hon. Member for giving me as much notice as he could of the debate. My interests are his. Within the constrictions of being a member of the Government, I shall do what I can to improve the lot of those who are suffering from this sad, serious and devastating complaint.

Mr. Dalyell: I thank the Minister for his concerned and caring reply. In all conscience, it is as much as I can ask for in a second Adjournment debate. I was moved by the example that he gave of the wife who discovered from the medical authorities of the death of her husband 10 minutes before the police informed her.
That is the sort of terrible situation that can arise. It would be simple to contact a computer in Bristol to find out the necessary information and make a decision well before that sort of awful grief blockbuster occurred. One can

imagine the grief of that poor woman when she was asked the terrible question "Can we have your husband's organs?" before she knew that he was dead. That is the sort of case that makes some legislation, not necessarily my Bill, imperative in the view of many hon. Members.

Mr. Fairgrieve: I appreciate and thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes past Ten o'clock